Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Harish Kori - Appellant
Vs.
Raju K. Rajvardhan and Others - Respondent
M.A. No. 2343 of 2006
Decided On : 07-12-2012
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation - Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The court discussed the necessity for permits for motor vehicles and the exemption for vehicles owned by the Central or State Government used for government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise. The court emphasized the requirement for the Union of India to plead and prove ownership and non-commercial use of the vehicle to be exempt from permit requirements. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the appellant and the evidence presented by the Insurance company to establish the lack of a valid permit for the vehicle. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India and allowed the claimant's appeal in part, directing an enhanced compensation amount and maintaining the direction for the Insurance company to pay and recover from the Union of India.
Fact of the Case:
The injured was involved in an accident with a school bus, resulting in grievous injuries and permanent disability. The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The tribunal awarded compensation, but the Union of India and the Insurance company appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Union of India's appeal and allowed the claimant's appeal in part, directing an enhanced compensation amount and maintaining the direction for the Insurance company to pay and recover from the Union of India.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the Union of India to pay compensation, the adequacy of the compensation awarded, and the validity of the Insurance company's liability to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the Union of India to plead and prove ownership and non-commercial use of the vehicle to be exempt from permit requirements. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the appellant and the evidence presented by the Insurance company to establish the lack of a valid permit for the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Union of India's appeal and allowed the claimant's appeal in part, directing an enhanced compensation amount and maintaining the direction for the Insurance company to pay and recover from the Union of India.
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
This order shall govern the disposal of MA No. 2343/06 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement and also M.A. No. 2534/ 06 filed by the a Central Govt. through Commandant MRC, Sagar assailing the award of compensation. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 29.3.06 passed by the 1st AMACT, Sagar in Case No. 32/04, aforesaid both the appeals have been preferred. The facts in brief are that on 29.10.03 at about 7 AM, the injured was going to distribute the newspaper on the bicycle but near the Rest house No. 2 Cant Sagar, the bus of MRC School bearing No. CPV-0544 driven rashly and negligently by the driver came from behind and dashed the bicycle thereby the injured fell down and received injuries over the head, back, hand, leg and shoulder. The intimation was given to P.S. Cant by the auto-driver Sanju alias Satyendra, on which, at crime No. 678/03 offence punishable u/s 279, 337 of the IPC was registered. The injured remained hospitalized in the district hospital, Sagar from 29.10.03 to 14.4.04. The operation of disruption of Pelvic and rupture of Urethra was performed. With the aforesaid averments, being student of Class 8th, while performing the work of distribution of newspaper, the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short the Act) seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 9 lacs on account of permanent disability received to the injured, was filed.
2. The Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement and admitted the ownership of the vehicle. It was denied that respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance company, however, the owner is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. It is further stated that the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation against the owner.
3. The Respondent No. 3 insurance company filed its written statement and admitted insurance of said vehicle but inter alia contended that the said insurance was on fulfilling the terms and conditions of the policy. It is said, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and insured also as commercial vehicle for transportation of the students of the school. However, the said bus was not having the valid permit on the date of accident, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No. 4 also filed his written statement contending that he was driving the vehicle being driver of respondent No. 2 and it was not driven by respondent No. 1.
4. The tribunal while passing the impugned award recorded a finding that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligence driving of the said vehicle. It has further been held that in the said accident the injured has suffered grievous injuries and also received permanent disability. It is further held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation because the vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy without having any permit, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In view of the foregoing facts, the tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,38,245/- with a direction to pay and recover. From the said amount Rs. 65,835 awarded in medical expenses, Rs. 32,130/- for future loss of earning on account of disability, Rs. 15,290/- for transport expenses and Rs. 25000/- for mental pain and future suffering.
5. Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for Union of India referring the provision of section 66 of the Act contends that as per sub section 3(a) if any transport vehicle is owned by the Central or the State Government and used for the purpose unconnected with any commercial enterprise, the permit to ply such vehicle is not required. However, the findings recorded by the tribunal exonerating the insurance company on account of net having the valid permit is unsustainable in law, therefore, the award passed by the claims tribunal may be modified and the insurance com
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
