Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MR. JUSTICE ABHAY GOHIL, MR. JUSTICE S. SAMVATSAR
ANURADHA KAUSHIK - Appellant
Versus
VARUN GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Respondents
M. A. 609 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/13/2006
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Section 173
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an advocate, died in a road accident. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company disputed liability, and the legal representatives of the owner and the driver filed cross-objections disputing their liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability for the accident was contributory, apportioning it 50:50 between the driver of the tanker and the driver of the maruti van. The court upheld the compensation amount and dismissed the appeals and cross-objections.
Issues: Enhancement of compensation, liability of the insurance company, and liability of the owner and driver of the vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the contributory liability finding and the compensation amount. It also clarified the right of recovery for the insurance company and modified the extent of recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.
It is not necessarily mandatory for the owner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to avail the remedy of appeal in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if the insurance company has already paid the awarded amount to the claimant. The requirement of depositing a specific amount for filing an appeal typically depends on the provisions of the relevant statutory rules and the nature of the appeal.
In general, the deposit is often mandated as a condition for maintaining the appeal, especially when the appeal is filed by the owner or other interested parties. However, if the insurance company has already paid the awarded amount to the claimant, and the appeal is filed by the owner challenging the award or seeking enhancement, the specific deposit amount and requirements may vary based on the rules governing the tribunal and the circumstances of the case.
It is important to verify the applicable statutory provisions and tribunal rules, as they specify whether such a deposit is mandatory in the particular context. If the rules do not explicitly require a deposit when the insurance company has already paid the award, the owner may not be obliged to deposit Rs. 25,000/- to pursue the appeal.
Consulting with a legal professional or reviewing the relevant tribunal rules will provide clarity on the specific requirements in this situation.
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals; misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 and Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003. Claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insurance company has also filed Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 disputing its liability and the legal representatives of the owner of respondent Varun Ground Water development Corporation and the driver have also filed cross-objections disputing their liability.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Bharat Bhushan Kaushik was an advocate practising at Gwalior. The claimants of Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 are the widow, daughters and son of deceased bharat Bhushan Kaushik. On 7. 12. 1998 in the night at about 9 o'clock deceased was going towards Morena from Gwalior in his maruti van bearing No. MP 07-437 near jaderua village, which is 8 km. away from noorabad; one tanker No. MKH 9255 was parked in the mid of the road. The owner of the tanker was changing the tyre but no red signal was there indicating about the parking of the vehicle. The other vehicles were also passing from the road with halogen lights on. As a result of the halogen lights of other vehicles Maruti van dashed with the tanker from behind. Maruti van was damaged. Dinesh Sharma, who was travelling in the van died on spot. Yogendra Singh and Raj Kumar, who were also travelling in the van, received grievous injuries. Bharat Bhushan Kaushik was referred to J. A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, thereafter he was shifted to Garg Nursing home and as a consequence of the injuries in the intervening night of 7/8. 12. 1998 he died. Crime was registered at Police Station, Noorabad and claimants have filed their claim petition. Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 per month and after deduction. of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, determined the dependency of Rs. 4,000 per month and after applying the multiplier of 15 assessed the total compensation of rs. 7,20,000 and deducted 50 per cent of the aforesaid amount towards contributory negligence. Thus, the Tribunal awarded rs. 3,60,000 plus Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Against which the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
( 3 ) IN M. A. No. 609 of 2003 it was the contention of the insurance company that the cheque issued towards the payment of premium was dishonoured, therefore, the insurance company is not liable. Considering the decisions of the Supreme Court the Tribunal directed that the insurance company may pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle; against which the owner of the vehicle has also filed cross-objection. The driver of the vehicle has also filed cross-objections about his liability.
( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and finding recorded by the Tribunal,
( 5 ) FIRST of all we have perused the cross-objection filed on behalf of the owner and driver of the vehicle. No statutory amount as required under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 has been deposited by the owner or driver of the vehicle for filing the cross-objection. Therefore, on the face of it, the cross-objection is dismissed. ( 6 ) SO far as Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 filed by the insurance company is concerned, Tribunal has already granted right of recovery to the insurance company. Since it is a case of third party accident, even in the case of cancellation of the policy on dishonour of cheque the insurance company is liable under statutory liability. The learned Tribunal has already placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 (SC), in which the Supreme court has held that once the cover note/ policy is issued, the insurance company becomes l
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
