Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2182
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Kanta And Others - Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar And Another - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 5926 of 2013
Decided On : 22-11-2019
Pranav Chadha, Advocate, Nikhil K Chopra, Advocate
Accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, whether stationary or in motion, are covered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the claimants are entitled to compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 163-A - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT] - [Section 163-A] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and various judgments related to accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, whether stationary or in motion. The court reversed the finding of the Tribunal and held that the deceased's death in a stationary truck unloading accident was covered by Section 163-A, and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Surinder Chand in a truck unloading accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that the accident did not fall under the provisions of Section 163-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court reversed the Tribunal's finding, holding that the accident fell under the provisions of Section 163-A, and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the deceased's death, the amount of compensation, the maintainability of the claim petition, and the violation of insurance policy terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case laws, which established that accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, whether stationary or in motion, are covered under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court awarded compensation to the claimants, holding the respondents liable to pay the amount.
Act Referred
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. - Smt.Kanta aged 29 years - widow, Baby Sapna, aged about 11 years - minor daughter and Master Avtar Singh - minor son of Surinder Chand - deceased had brought a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents i.e. Manoj Kumar - owner and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Chandigarh - insurer of Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-37-A-6996, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest.
2. As per the version of the claimants, on 1.9.2009, Surinder Chand deceased had gone with a truck, which was loaded with glass material to Ludhiana; when he and some other persons were unloading that glass material from the truck in the area of Dolhewala Chowk, Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana, they lost grip, as a result of which the glass material fell on the deceased causing multiple injuries to him including on head; he was removed to hospital, where he succumbed to those injuries on 3.9.2009 at 1:30 a.m.
3. According to the claimants, at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 34 years and was working as a driver with respondent No.1 - Manoj Kumar, earning Rs.3,200/- per month and they were dependent upon earnings of the deceased.
4. On getting notice, both the respondents appeared and filed separate written statements opposing the claim petition.
5. In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, he had raised various preliminary objections including one with regard to maintainability of the claim petition contending that deceased did not meet with any accident and the claimants were not entitled to any compensation; as a matter of fact death of Surinder Chand had been caused when he himself lost grip of rope while unloading glass material from the truck. The answering respondent had handed over his vehicle to M/s Hardev Transport Company, which had deputed Surinder Chand as a driver thereof. On merits, though the allegations in the claim petition were not specifically denied but it was stated that the contents be proved by strict proof.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 - insurance company, it denied the material assertions in the claim petition contending that the accident does not come within the purview of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; that respondent No.1 did not have route permit to ply vehicle on the road and the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence; that the vehicle was not insured and the claim petition was not maintainable. In the end, such respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the deceased Surinder Chand died in road side accident which took place on 2.9.2009 near Dholewala Chowk, Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana because of rash & negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-37-A-6996? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. Issues were however recast on 18.10.2011 as under:
1. Whether the deceased Surinder Chand died in road side accident which took place on 1.9.2009 near Dholewala Chowk, Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-37-A-6996? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether at the relevant time, vehicle no.HR-37-A-6996 being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as it was not having route permit? OPR.
4. Whether the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the provision of Workmen Compensation Act? OPR.
5. Relief.
9. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
10. To prove their case, Smt.Kanta - claimant No.1 had got her statement recorded as P
