2000 (1) JLJ 343.
S.C. Pandey, J.
Mahesh Kumar and others v. Munnalal and others
Misc. Appeal No. 1644 of 1988; against the award passed by 12th Addl.
Claims Tribunal. Jabalpur, in Claim Case No. 130 of 1997;
Decided on. 5.10.1999.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- no fault liability is statutory -does not depend upon any liability of negligence -- it is absolute liability making departure from common law -- it is akin to common law liability in Law of Torts. 1968 LR 3 HL 330 relied on. [Para 11]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 --Ss. 140 and 142 -- two vehicles involved in accident – no fault liability is to be discharged by both -- no pleading of any fault is necessary -- intention is to give immediate relief to victims. [Para 12]
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 --S. 140 -- two vehicles involved in accident -- one vehicles‘ driver owner died -- no LRs joined - insurer of this vehicle cannot object non-joinder without showing his LRs -- it is also liable along with insurer of the other vehicle. 1994 MPU 663 relied on. [Para 14 & 15]
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--S. 140 -- words ‘use of motor vehicle‘ used under -- should be given wider connotation -- it covers the accident when it occurs while vehicle is in motion or it is stationary. 1991 ACJ 777 followed. [Para 16]
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 140&varfje vf/kfu.kZ; dk ikj.k&fdlh çfrj{kk ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk&vafre vf/kfu.kZ; rnuqlkj mikarfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1994 ,e ih ,y ts 663 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6 ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 140&fcuk nks"k nkf;Ro dkuwuh gSa&mis{kk ds nkf;Ro ij fuHkZj ugha&lkekU fof/k esa fHkUu vkR;afrd nkf;Ro gS&viÑR; fof/k esa lkekU; fof/k nkf;Ro ds leku gSA 1968 ,y vkj 3 ,p ,y 330 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 11 ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 140 rFkk 142&nq?kZVuk esa nks ;ku varoZfyr&fcuk nks"k nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu nksuksa }kjk fd;k tkuk gksxk&nks"k dk vfHkopu vko‘;d ugha&vk‘k; vkgrksa dks rRdky vuqrks"k nsus dk gSA ¿iSjk 12 ¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 140&nq?kZVuk esa nks ;ku varoZfyr&,d ;ku ds pkyd&Lokeh dh e`R;q&fof/kd çfrfuf/k la;ksftr ugha&bl ;ku dk chekdrkZ mlds fof/kd çfrfuf/k n‘kkZ, fcuk vla;kstu dk vk{ksi ugha dj ldrk&vU ;ku ds chekdrkZ ds lkFk og Hkh nk;h gSA 1994 ,e ih ,y ts 663 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14 ,oa 15 ¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 140&ç;qDr ‘‘kCn ^eksVj ;ku dk mi;ksx* c`gÙkj vFkZ fn;k tkuk pkfg,&bldh O;kfIr esa og nq?kZVuk vkrh gS tks ;ku ds pyk;eku gksus ds nkSjku vFkok mlds fLFkj jgus ds nkSjku gksrh gSA 1991 , lh ts 777 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16
This is an appeal against the order dated 25th Sep. 1998 arising out of Claim case No. 130/97 whereby the Claims Tribunal, presided over by 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, has granted an interim award of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for death of Rama Bai, aged about 30 years, to the appellants against respondent No.1, Munnalal, driver of the truck, respondent No. 2 M/s Capital Roadways and Finance Private Limited, Chhola Road, Bhopal and respondent NO.3 Oriental Insurance Company, Napier Town, Jabalpur.
2. Disposal of this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 1647/98, arising out of Claim Case No. 132/97 Misc. Appeal No. 1648/98 arising out of Claim Case No. 134/97, Misc. Appeal No. 1654/98, arising out of Claim case No. 128/97, Misc. Appeal No. 1655/98, arising out of Claim case No. 133/97 and Misc. Appeal No. 1656/98, arising out of Claim Case No. 144/97, because the appellants in each case have been awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of interim award by a common order.
3. The claim of the appellants is that the Claims Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 50,000/- either against respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally or it should have apportioned Rs. 25,000/- to the United India Insurance Company respondent No.4 in this case, who was the insurer of the jeep bearing No. MP 28/B 0399.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to give facts of the case in brief. On 27.6.97, 19 persons were travelling in the jeep in question, including the appellants. They were going from Jabalpur to Maihar. The Jeep was registered vide No. MP 28/B 0399 and insured With respondent No.4, United India Insurance Company. It is alleged in the Claim petition that the driver and the owner of the jeep, late Ravi Shankar, had given side to the truck. But on account of negligent driving of truck No. MP 04/F 8281 by respondent No. 1 Munnalal, there was an accident. The truck dashed against the almost stationary jeep and caused death of six persons and injured another eight persons. The owner and the driver Ravi Shankar also expired in the accident on 27.6.97. The appellants further filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim award during the pendency of the claim petition on the basis of no fault liability against all the respondents.
5. The Claims Tribunal, after giving an opportunity to the respondents to file reply, granted only Rs. 25,000/- for each dead person to the claimants in each case by way of interim award against the respondent No.1 and 3.
6. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants argued, relying on the case of National Insurance Company v. Thaglu Singh Vishwanath Gond and others (1994 MPU 663) that while passing an award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the defence of a party cannot be considered. The division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case held that whenever an accident occurs, the claim of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be decided without any reference to the defence taken by the insurance company and interim award should be passed. The Claims Tribunal is entitled to pass an appropriate order at the time of passing the final award and accordingly modify the interim award. The decision of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and, therefore, this Court is not entitled to consider the defence raised by any of the respondents.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that the United India Insurance Compan, insurer of the jeep, cannot be held liable merely because it has been made a party to the claim case. In the claim case, there is no allegation for recovering any compensation on account of negligence; of the driver of the jeep who himself expired due to the accident. It is stated in the claim petition that the jeep was almost stationary and it was the driver of the truck, respondent No.1 who was negligent in causing
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.