Order On Board

08.09.2022

1. The present is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants are the parents of deceased Leeladhar Sahu.

2. The appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 111/2012. vide the Impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of claimants.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that on

23/24.02.2008 when deceased Leeladhar Sahu was operating the tractor belonging to the respondents, the tractor turned turtle and deceased Leeladhar got crushed under the said tractor and died instantly. The claimants being the parents of the unmarried deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that the tractor was not insured at the relevant point of time. It is also reflected that at the time of accident, it was only the deceased Leeladhar Sahu who was sitting in the tractor while operating the same.

4. The claim application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no evidence as regards the negligence of any person other than the deceased himself available on record. The Tribunal, under the said circumstances, in the absence of any negligence or breach on the part of any person other than the deceased, has held that the claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act would not be maintainable and has rejected the same.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for appellants submits that considering the fact that the provision under Section 166 as also under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act being social legislation with an intention to meet the social objective of a reasonable compensation to the victims of an accident, the Tribunal if at all if it had reached to the conclusion that the claim application was not maintainable under Section 166 of the MV Act, it could have permitted the claimants to amend the claim application converting it into an application under Section 163A in stead of 166 of the MV Act. According to the claimants, if they would have been permitted to amend their claim application to one under Section 163A of MV Act, the aspect of proving negligence would not have arisen and the claimants who have lost their son could have been suitably compensated.

6. Learned counsel for respondents, opposing the appeal, submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference and the same has been decided taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence which has come on record. It is the further contention of respondents that since there was no request made by the claimants themselves for conversion of the application from Section 166 to one under Section 163A of MV Act, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth by the counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of records, admittedly an accident did take place on 23.02.2008. It is also not in dispute that arising out of the said accident, deceased Leeladhar Sahu who was driving the offending tractor, got crushed under the same when the tractor turned turtle and died instantly. The two claimants are father and mother of the deceased. They had moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent-owner. It is this application which got rejected by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

8. What is necessary to be taken note of is the fact that Section 163A of the MV Act is a subsequently enacted provision which has been enacted in order to ensure that the victims or the claimants of the deceased person whose claim application otherwise would not be maintainable under Section 166 of the MV Act would have an alternative mechanism for claiming compensation particularly in those cases where negligence p