SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. WALIA, J.
United India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Kaur & Ors. - Respondents
FAO No.5122 of 2005 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate.

Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent on the identification of the offending vehicle, as provided in Section 140, and separate provisions exist for hit and run accidents under Section 161.

Headnote:

Liability - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 140, Section 161

Fact of the Case:

The court considered whether liability can be imposed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in case the offending vehicle is unidentified. The court found that Section 140 provides for 'No Fault Liability' only in respect of a vehicle which has been identified.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the award of 'No Fault Liability' of Rs.50,000. However, the court directed that the respondent-claimants can submit an application within three months for compensation under Section 161 of the Act read with the Solatium Scheme, 1989.

Issues: The main issue was whether liability can be imposed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in case the offending vehicle is unidentified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 140 provides for compensation only in respect of a vehicle which has been identified, while Section 161 deals with hit and run motor accidents where the identity of the vehicle cannot be ascertained.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the award of 'No Fault Liability' was set aside. The respondent-claimants were directed to submit an application within three months for compensation under Section 161 of the Act read with the Solatium Scheme, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. WALIA, J.

1. The matter was heard at length on 31.5.2018 whereupon the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 requested that the matter be kept for today. However, despite case having been called out, none is present on behalf of the respondents. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to adjourn the case.

2. The only point involved in the instant case is as to whether liability can be imposed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in case the offending vehicle is unidentified.

3. Learned counsel by referring to Section 161 of the Act states that separate provisions exist in respect of accident caused by an unidentified vehicle whereas Section 140 of the Act provides for grant of Rs.50,000/- as 'No Fault Liability' only in respect of a vehicle which has been identified.

Section 140 as well as Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are reproduced as under :

“140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.—

(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees].

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. 3[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A.]

161. Special provisions as to compensation in case of hit and run motor accident.—

(1) For the purposes of this section, section 162 and section 163—

(a) “grievous hurt” shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);

(b) “hit and run motor accident” means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose;

(c) “scheme” means the scheme framed under section 163.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972) or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having the force of law, the General Insurance Corporation of India formed under section 9 of the said Act and the insurance companies for the time being carrying on general insurance business in India shall provide for paying in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the scheme, compensation in respect of the death of, or grievous hurt to, persons resulting from hit and run motor accidents













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top