Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
P.C.Verma
DHARMAWATI DEVI
Versus
GURCHARAN SINGH
Decided On : 26 June 2006
Appeal From Order No. 49 of 2003
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 163-A, Section 140, Section 161 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, particularly Section 163-A, Section 140, and Section 161, and their applicability to the case. The court highlighted the concept of no-fault liability and the special provisions for compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents under these sections. The court emphasized that the claim tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case and the dismissal of the claim petition at the outset was not sustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim petition filed by the appellants before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal following the death of Karan Singh in a tractor accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case and the dismissal of the claim petition at the outset was not sustainable in law. The court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the claim tribunal to deal with the matter afresh and decide the same on merit after recording the evidence.
Issues: The issues included the liability for compensation, the jurisdiction of the claim tribunal, and the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case and the dismissal of the claim petition at the outset was not sustainable in law.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal were set aside. The claim tribunal was directed to deal with the matter afresh and decide the same on merit after recording the evidence.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-11-1980, at about 01:30 p. m. Karan Singh was standing on the Kachhi Patri of road near the east of Lok Bastra Ekkai Haripura and persuaded the farmers not to supply sugarcane to the factory. One tractor bearing registration No. UTF 6339 driven by Gurucharan Singh - Opposite party No. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner came there and crushed the deceased. The claim ant claimed Rs. 15, 00, 000/- as com pensation. At the time of accident, the deceased was a practicing lawyer. He was aged of 46 years and his profes sional income was Rs. 1,000/- and by
agriculture and other income comes to Rs. 5, 000/ -. The deceased was a prom ising practicing lawyer and was income tax assessee. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribu nal concerned in lieu of the death of Karan Singh.
3. The owners/respondents filed their written statement in the claim pe tition before the Tribunal concerned al leging therein that the petition for compensation was misconceived and was based on wrong facts and allega tions. The respondents also alleged that the deceased was not a practicing Ad vocate and highly exaggerated income has been shown by the claimants. It was also alleged that the deceased at the time of accident was 55 years of age and he was sick person having very short expectancy of his life. He never looked after the agriculture farm. The Insurance Company also disputed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition. The accident was oc curred due to the fault of the deceased and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. The opposite party No. 3. In surance Company contested the case by filing written statement stating therein that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of com pensation and that the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was not being driven by the person holding a licence and the tractor was insured for compensation risk for Rs. 1, 50, 000/-only. The claim petition was not main tainable under law as the death of the deceased - Karan Singh was caused by an intentional act of committing his murder by the driver of the tractor who was planning to murder the deceased for the last several days preceding the incident. It was also alleged that the death of Karan Singh was not the re sult of any accident of the motor vehicle but the offending tractor was used for commission of murder of the de ceased hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:
1. Whether the tractor No. UTF 6339 was being driven by Gurucharan Singh respondent No. 1 or by Gurnam Singh driver on 25-11-1980 at 01:30 p. m. near Lok Vastra Ikai Haripura, P. S. Jaspur? Its effects?
2. Whether the accident in question resulting in the death of Karan Singh occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question by its driver? Its effect?
3. What was the age of the de ceased?
4. Whether the deceased was a practicing lawyer? If so, its effect?
5. To what amount of compensa tion, if any, are the claimants en titled and against whom of the respondents?
6. Whether the driver of the tractor in question did not hold a valid driving licence? If so, its effect?
7. Whether the death of the de ceased was not the result of the accident in question and this tri bunal has no jurisdiction to try this Petition?
8. Whether the Insurance Co. , is not liable to pay any compensa tion as alleged in Para 15 of the amended written statement of Opposite Party No. 3, Paper No. 18b?
9. Whether the accident of the de ceased has been caused with the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
