Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 356
2008(2) JLJ 100
A.K. Mishra, J.
Subodh Sharma v. Satendra Singh
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 872 of 2003 (Gwalior) : against the award of III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dabra, District Gwalior, passed in Claim Case No. 70 of 2002;
Decided on 12.3.2008.
O.P. Agrawal for appellant.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.166, 140 and 163A -- application for compensation -- is maintainable even if offending vehicle is not insured -- insurance of vehicle is not sine qua non to entertain application under the Act.
The Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs.7,000/on account of personal injuries sustained in the accident, however, declined to grant it on the basis of decision in Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad v. Parmanand Thakur [1985 ACJ 290], and the Tribunal has held relying upon the aforesaid decision that as the vehicle was not insured, claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal. [Para 3
Held: It is nowhere imperative in the Act there has to be insurance of the vehicle before an application under section 166 or section 140 or section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act is entertained. Insurance of vehicle is not sine quo non to entertain m1 application under the Act of 1988.
In view of aforesaid, the decision rendered by the Tribunal cannot be said to be legally sustainable, same is liable to be set aside and it is held that application can be entertained by the Tribunal even if vehicle is not insured. 1985 ACJ 290 dissented from. (2004)8 SCC 667 followed. [Paras 8 & 9
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988& &/kkjk 166] 140 rFkk 163d& &çfrdj ds fy, vkosnu& &pykus ;ksX; gS] Hkys gh ;ku chfer ugha gks& &;ku dk chek] vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkosnu xzg.k djus ds fy, vfuok;Zrk ugha gSA
vf/kdj.k esa nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ ‘kkjhfjd {kfr;ksa ds fy, # 7]000@& vo/kkfjr fd, gS] rFkkfi dfe‘kuj] dksyekbUl osyQs;j vkxZukbts‘ku] /kuckn fo- ijekuan Bkdqj ¼1985 , lh ts 190½ esa fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij og nsus ls badkj dj fn;k vkSj iwoksZDr fu.kZ; dk voyac ysrs gq, vf/kdj.k us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd D;ksafd ;ku chekÑr ugha Fkk] vthZ vf/kdj.k ds le{k pykus ;ksX; ugha FkhA ¼iSjk 3½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% vf/kfu;e esa ;g dgha Hkh vkKkid ugha gS fd eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 166 vFkok /kkjk 140 ;k /kkjk 163d ds v/khu vkosnu xzg.k fd, tkus ds iwoZ ;ku chfer gksuk pkfg,A 1998 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkosnu xzg.k fd, tkus ds fy, ;ku vfuok;Zrk ugha gSA
iwoksZDr dh n`f"V ls vf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; fof/kd :i ls ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha dgk tk ldrk] og vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnu vf/kdj.k }kjk xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gS] Hkys gh ;ku chfer ugha gksA 1985 , lh ts 290 folEerA ¼2004½ 8 ,l lh lh 667 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by award dated 29.8.2003 passed in Claim Case No.70/02 passed by IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dabra, District Gwalior.
2. Claimant preferred the claim petition as against the respondent claiming compensation on account of personal injuries sustained in an accident dated 20.3.2001 caused by motorcycle (MP-07K/0009) driven by respondent. For the treatment of injuries the claimant remained admitted for 10 days in the hospital at Dabra, consequently, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The claimant was doing the work of contractor, he has spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the treatment, his age was 42 years at the time of accident.
3. The respondent in the reply contended that excessive compensation was claimed, simple injuries were caused, in order to avoid the harassment the guilt was admitted in criminal case, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs.7,000/on account of personal injuries sustained in the accident, however, declined to grant it on the basis of decision in Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad v. Parmanand Thakur [1985 ACJ 290], and the. Tribunal has held relying upon the aforesaid decision that as the vehicle was not insured, claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for appellant.
5. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be legally sustainable one, section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with filing of application for compensation. It is nowhere imperative under the Act that vehicle should be insured in order to claim entitlement to invoke the provision of the Act of 1988. In case vehicle is insured, insurer has to make indemnification. The defences available to the insurer are provided under section 149 of the Act and for enlarging defences provision of section 170 has to be invoked by the insurer. Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for establishment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 165 makes it clear that claims for compensation in respect of accidents includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163A of the Act. Section 165(1) along with its explanation is quoted below:
"165. Claims Tribunal. -- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression, "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under section 140 (and section 163A)."
Section 166 deals with application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by person, who has sustained the injury, or by the owner of the property, or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of section 166 provides the place where it can be moved.
Section 168 provides for award of the Claims Tribunal. On receipt of an application for compensation
