Back
2022 Supreme(Manipur) 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Louriyam Sanahanbi Devi & Ors. - Respondents
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Mr. Athouba Khaidem, G.A, for the Petitioners; Mr. A. Deni Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'accidental death' under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and its application to the specific circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for death of police constable in ambush - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of a police constable in an ambush by underground activists while traveling in a motor vehicle owned by the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the police constable did not qualify as an 'accidental death' by the use of a motor vehicle, and therefore the claims case was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claims case was maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in previous cases to determine the concept of 'accidental death' and the link between the death and the use of the motor vehicle.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and held that the claims case was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - Motor Accident Claims Case No. 159 of 2014 was filed by the parents (father, since deceased), widow and son of late Louriyam Sanjit Singh, a Police Constable of Ukhrul District Police, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Lamphelpat. The case was thereafter transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bishnupur, and renumbered as Motor Accident Claims Case No. 1 of 2016. This claims case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1988'), seeking compensation of Rs.22,33,480/- for the death of Louriyam Sanjit Singh in an ambush by underground activists while travelling in a motor vehicle owned by the State.
The Tribunal settled five issues for consideration in the case. The second issue framed was as to whether the claims case was maintainable or not. Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2017 was filed by the State requesting the Tribunal to take up the second issue pertaining to the maintainability of the claims case as a preliminary issue. By order dated 26.10.2017, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the State. Having considered the preliminary issue, the Tribunal held that the claims case was maintainable and that there was a need to go deeper into the matter to clarify the legal position, vide order dated 26.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur and its Under Secretary (Home) filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. Heard Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioners; and Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Section 166 of the Act of 1988 applies to claims for compensation arising out of accidents involving motor vehicles and in cases of death, where the death is essentially accidental as opposed to intentional. As the police constable admittedly died in an ambush by underground activists, the State would contend that it was not an accidental death and that no claim would lie for compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.
4. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1988 reflects that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty and others [(1987) 4 SCC 284] was taken into account, wherein suggestions had been made to raise the limit of compensation payable as a result of a motor accident, in respect of death and permanent disablement, in the event of there being no proof of fault on the part of the person involved in the accident and also in hit-and-run motor accidents. The proposed legislation was stated to have been prepared in the light of this background and some of the important provisions therein were with regard to enhanced compensation in cases of 'no fault liability' and 'hit-and-run' motor accidents, apart from payment of compensation by the insurer, to the extent of actual liability, to the victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles.
5. Section 166 of the Act of 1988, titled 'Application for compensation', states that an application for compensation arising out an accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made by a person who sustained injury; or 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 maybe.
6. Section 165 (1) of the Act of 1988 provides for the adjudicating of 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. Thus, it is clear that the accident involving the death of a person must arise out of the use of the motor vehicle. There must therefore be a direct link between the death and the use of the motor vehicle.
7. However, in Rita Devi (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Co. Limited and ano
