Compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act may be awarded if the accident occurred during the use of a motor vehicle, and the owner or insurer is liable to pay compensation.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—

1. We have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, and Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred against the impugned award dated 31.1.2004 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 135 of 1999 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kheri.

2. Deceased Kashmir Singh was a truck driver bearing no. UP 65-H/0691. On 3.6.1999 he was coming from Madhya Pradesh after loading iron. When he reached near town Kablapur, stopped the truck and came down from the truck and was checking the tyre after parking on roadside. An unknown vehicle came in a rash and negligent way and collided with deceased Kashmir Singh, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot on 13.6.1999 at 3.45 pm near Kablapur. An FIR was lodged and dependent of the deceased approached the tribunal. It appears that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but later on it was amended and by order dated 11.9.2003 passed by the Court, petition was converted to Section 163-A of the Act.

3. Before the tribunal, the claimant-respondents recorded the statement of PW 1 Kulwant Kaur and PW 2 Amarjit Singh, who is the eye witness and stated that he was driving truck number D.L.I G.A. 6527 from Ramgarh to Kotdwar with iron loaded truck. His truck was going ahead from the truck which was being driven by Kashmir Singh. He stopped the truck at the Dhaba and saw that when Kashmir Singh was checking the tyres of his truck an unknown vehicle came from back side and hit Kashmir Singh. Keeping in view the statement given by the eye witnesses and other material on record, the tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the aforesaid date and time while he was discharging his obligation as employee of the truck owner. From defendants' side no evidence was led. The tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,97,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% assessing the income of deceased as 2,400/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case reported in 2005 (1) T.A.C. 220 (All.): U.P. State Road Treansport Corporation Vs. Ram Ajore Maurya, which deals with the situation, where the liability has been fastened by the Tribunal against the U.P.S.R.T.C., and their lordships held that in the event of negligent of the owner of the offended motor vehicle, the compensation may not be fastened on the U.P.S.R.T.C. But it should be claimed from the owner of the vehicle. However, the case of Ram Ajore (supra) deals with different provisions of the Act and the Apex Court seems to have not considered provisions relevant for this case and the judgment also does not seem to applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. On the other hand, Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents, relied upon the cases reported in (2011) 2 SCC 416: New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others; 2000 ACJ 801 (SC): Smt. Rita Devi & others. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another; 2010 ACJ 74 (All): National Insurance Co. Vs. Shimla & others; 2010 ACJ 784: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gitaben Saitansingh Rajput and others; 2009 ACJ 1518: Ravanna & others. Vs. Pitambar Lal Sao & others; 2008 ACJ 1624 (All): Manjula Devi Mishra and others. Vs. Commercial Motors and others; 2006 ACJ 528 (SC): National Insurance Co. Vs. Mastan & another; 2004 ACJ 971 (All): Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shibhu Bai & others; 2001 ACJ 428 (SC): Kaushnuma Begum & Others.Vs.New India Assurance, and 1987 ACJ 561 (SC): Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant initially tried to assail the impugned order on the ground that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document