Back
1999 (2) JLJ 231
Fakhruddin, J.
Shamina Begum and others v. Rajendra Waghmare and another
Misc. Appeal No. 375 of 1998; against the award passed by III Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 13 of 1997;
Decided on 14. 5.1999.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- compensation under the head of no fault liability -- accident should arise out of use of Motor Vehicle -- should result in death or permanent disablement -- claim should be made against owner and insurer. [Para 7]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- claim for no fault liability -- panchnama; FIR and post-mortem report filed -- use of motor vehicle and nature of injuries can be ascertained -- in case of doubt further information from police or medical officers may be collected by Tribunal under the Rules. [Para 7]
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 140 and 166 -- interim award under -- should be made as expeditiously as possible -- it has to be made before adjudication of claim under S. 166. [Para 8].
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- interim award -- taking years for no fault of claimants -- after receiving copy of cover note insurer replies that it is not sure whether the vehicle is insured by it or not -- actions are astonishing. [Para 12]
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- interim compensation under -- is Payable to the heirs of owner -- cum-driver of the offending vehicle who died of his own negligence -- enquiry as to negligence not contemplated under. AIR 1996 Kerala 144 (DB) relied on. [Para 14]
(7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 151(1) -- owner and driver -- can be called by Tribunal to produce paper of insurance. [Para 15]
(8) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 --. Ss. 145(b) and 147(3) -- copy of certificate of insurance given to insurer -- policy alleged to be not traceable by it -- who else will be in a position to trace it out? [Para 16]
(9) Insurance Act, 1938 -- Ss. 3A and 14 -- insurance company avoiding to produce policy on the pretex of not traceable -- matter is serious -- Managing Director directed to make thorough probe and submit report about conduct of Insurance Co. – provisions quoted to be taken note of. [Para 19]
(10) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- interim compensation prolonged by insurer -- ordered to be paid with interest @ 12% p.a. – if not paid within one month penal interest imposed @ 15% p.a. from the date of application. [Para 20]
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && fcuk =qfV nkf;Ro ij vk/kkfjr nkok && vgr Lo;a mis{kkiw.kZ jgk gks rc Hkh foQy ugha gks ldrk && bl ‘kh"kZ esa izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr djus ds fy, fdlh dh Hkh mis{kk ij /;ku ugha fn;k tk,xkA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 1769 ¾ 1991 , lh ts 777 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1690 ¾ 1987 , lh ts 561 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 5 ,oa 6 ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 && fcuk =qfV nkf;Ro ds ‘kh"kkZ/khu izfrdj && nq?kZVuk eksVj;ku ds mi;ksx ls mn~Hkwr gksuk pkfg, && e`R;q vFkok LFkk;h fu%‘kDrrk esa ifj.kr gksuk pkfg, && nkok Lokeh rFkk chedrkZ ds fo:) fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 7 ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 && fcuk =qfV nkf;Ro ds fy, nkok && iapukek] izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rFkk ‘ko ijh{k.k fjiksVZ Qkby dh xbZ && eksVj ;ku dk mi;ksx rFkk {kfr;ksa dk Lo:i vfHkfuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gS && lansg gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk fu;eksa ds v/khu iqfyl vFkok LokLF; vf/kdkfj;ksa ls tkudkjh ,d= dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 rFkk 166 && varfje vf/kfu.kZ; && ;FkklaHko ‘kh?kzrk ls fd;k tkuk pkfg, && /kkjk 166 ds v/khu nkos ds U;k;fu.kZ; ls iwoZ fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 && varfje vf/kfu.kZ; && nkosnkjksa ds nks"k ds fcuk o"kksZa rd yafcr && tksf[ke xzg.k i= dh izfr izkIr djus ds i‘pkr~ chekdrkZ }kjk mÙkj fn;k x;k fd ;g lqfuf‘pr ugha gS fd ;ku mlds }kjk chekd`r gS vFkok ugha && dk;Z vk‘p;Ztud gSaA ¿ iSjk 12 ¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 && varfje izfrdj && vijk/kh ;ku ds ml Lokeh≶&pkyd ds okfjlksa dks lans; gS ftldh Lo;a dh mis{kk ds dkj.k e`R;q gqbZ && bl /kkjk ds v/khu mis{kk ds ckjs esa tk¡p vuq/;kr ughaA , vkb vkj 1996 dsjy 144 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14 ¼7½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 151¼1½ && Lokeh rFkk pkyd && chek ds dkxti= izLrqr djus ds fy, vf/kdj.k }kjk cqyk, tk ldrs gSaA ¿ iSjk 15 ¼8½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 145¼[k½ rFkk 147¼3½ && chek izek.ki= dh izfr chekdrkZ dks nh xbZ && mlds }kjk ikfylh dk vuuqekxZ.kh; gksuk vfHkdfFkr && vU; dkSu mldk irk yxkus dh fLFkfr esa gS\ ¿ iSjk 16 ¼9½ chek vf/kfu;e] 1938 && /kkjk 3d rFkk 14 && vuuqekxZ.kh; gksus ds cgkus ls chek daiuh }kjk ikfylh izLrqr djus ls cpuk && ekeyk xaHkhj gS && izca/k funs‘kd dks chek daiuh ds vkpj.k ds ckjs esa laiw.kZ tk¡p djus rFkk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus dk funs‘k && m)` mica/kksa ij /;ku fn;k tk,A ¿ iSjk 19 ¼10½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 140 && varfje izfrdj chekdrkZ }kjk foyafcr 12 izfr‘kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt lfgr lank; djus dk vkns‘k && ,d ekl ds Hkhrj lanÙk ugha fd, tkus ij vkosnu ds fnukad ls 15 izfr‘kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls ‘kkfLrd C;kt vf/kjksfirA ¿ iSjk 20
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against an order dated 10.3.1998, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior (for short, the 'Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has rejected their application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. The facts are that Indu Khan was driver of vehicle No. CIH 7681. While he was driving the truck it met with an accident in which Indu Khan died. The claimants who are the legal representatives of deceased Indu Khan made a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act. Along with this claim an application for compensation under Section 140 of the Act was also made before the Tribunal. While considering this application, the Tribunal has C1rrived at the findings that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and it was due to his rash and negligent driving that the accident took place in which he died. On these findings, the Tribunal rejected the application under S. 140 of the Act.
3. Smt. Pumima Nigam, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in this case the Tribunal has found that the accident had taken place arising out of the vehicle; the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, and he died in the accident. The counsel contended that in rejecting the application the Tribunal has totally misconstrued the provisions of Section 140 of the Act.
4. Section 140 of the Act is quoted below:
"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault –
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicle shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-Section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed Sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-Section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-Section (1), the claimants shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-Section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person / in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement."
5. It is settled law that in a claim u/S. 140 of the Act based on the principle of no fault liability the claimants shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act of the owner nor such a claim shall be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made. In this case due to the accident involving the vehicle in question the driver himself was dead.
6. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another v. Vatschala Uttam More AIR 1991 SC 1769 = 1991 ACJ 777 the Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 939 (corresponding to Section 140 of he Act) quoted with approval the law enunciated by it in an earlier decision in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai AIR 1987 S
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
