Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
K.N.Ojha, J.
RAM KISHAN S O GULAB SINGH
Versus
SHIV RAM SON OF BENIRAM AND NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Decided On : 11 May 2005
First Appeal From Order (D) 399, 400 and 401 Of 2005
Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal under Section 173 - Proviso 1 of Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - The court discussed the mandatory provision of Section 173 and the applicability of the proviso clause, emphasizing that the liability of making payment has been fixed on the appellant and the proviso clause is clear that the person required to make payment of the amount of the award is required to make a deposit of the amount as contemplated by the proviso clause of Section 173 of the Act. The court also highlighted the principle laid down by the Hon. the Apex Court in Prakash Nath Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax JT 2004 (2) Standing Counsel 510 and the Full bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16755 of 2001 Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi v. The Rajya Pal and Ors., emphasizing that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in three motor accident claim cases. The cases arose from the same accident involving a truck owned by the appellant. The Tribunal held the owner of the vehicle liable to make payment of compensation, with a direction for the insurance company to make the first payment to the victims and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability of making payment was fixed on the appellant, and the proviso clause of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was applicable, requiring the appellant to deposit the amount as provided by the proviso clause.
Issues: The main issue was whether the liability of the appellant was covered by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether the proviso clause was applicable to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory provision of Section 173 and the applicability of the proviso clause, highlighting the principle that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.
Final Decision: The court held that the objection raised by the stamp Reporter of the Court was maintainable, and the First Appeals From Order were not maintainable without deposit. The appellants were required to deposit the amount as required by the proviso clause of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. K. Porwal learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.
( 2 ) ALL the above three appeals have been filed against common judgment and award dated 3. 2. 05 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Etawah (Spl. Judge D. A. A.) in Motor Accident claim Case No. 342 of 1993 Sheo Ram v. Ram Kishan whereby an award of Rs. 27000/alongwith interest @ 6% per annum has been made in favour of Sheo Ram, Motor Claim Case no. 311 of 1993 Santosh Kumar v. Ram Kishan wherein an award of Rs. 13,000/- alongwith 6 % interest has been made in favour of Santosh Kumar, in Motor Claim Case No. 343 of 1993 kishan Singh v. Ram Kishan wherein an award of Rs. 15000/- alongwith 6% interest has been made in favour of Shri Krishan. In all these Claim Petitions award has been made against the owner of the vehicle Ram. Kishan who is appellant in this case but a direction has been made that Opposite party No. 2 the New India Assurance Company, Etawah will make payment of the amount of award to the award holders respondents-claimants and the Insurance Company may recover it from owner of the vehicle who is appellant in this case. Objection of Stamp reporter in all the three above appeals is being decided by a common order.
( 3 ) THESE appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which contemplates that any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal may, within 90 days from the date of award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Proviso 1 of Section 173 of the Act contemplates that, "provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it Rs. 25. 000/- or 50% of the amount so awarded, which ever is less, in the manner directed by the high Court. "
( 4 ) THE Stamp Reporter Section of this Court has raised objection that the provision of the proviso clause of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been complied with by the appellants in these appeals. Amount awarded is less than Rs. 50,000/= therefore half of the amount of the. award including interest is to be deposited before the Appeal is entertained.
( 5 ) SRI Porwal learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award has been made against the insurance Company and not against the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle and therefore proviso clause of Section 173 of the Act is not applicable in these appeals and therefore the appellant is not liable to deposit these amount and the appeals may be entertained. It may be significant to mention that all these Claim Petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 3. 2. 05 because these Claim petitions from which these appeals have arisen related to one and the same accident which is said to have taken place on 24. 5. 93 at 8 a. m. by Truck No. UAN 8527 and the truck was owned by the appellant which was carrying goats. After appreciating the evidence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the fact of accident was proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck the injuries were caused to the respondent No. 1 of these Appeals in respect of which compensation has been awarded but it v as held that the persons who was driving the truck was not having driving license and therefore the owner of the vehicle i. e. truck was liable to make payment of the amount of compensation but relying on 2004 acj 1 National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, it was held by the Tribunal that Hon. the Apex Court has laid down that if there is breach of the terms of Insurance Company the owner of the vehicle is liable to make payment of compensation but first payment will be made to the victims by the Insurance Company which will be entitled to recover it from owner of the vehicle. In this case award has been made against the appellant owner of the vehicle but a direction has been made that first payment will be made by Insurance Company to award holders an
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
