HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

MA No. 24/2014

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate

Vs

Ghulam and another

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, Advocate for R-1.

None for R-2.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

ORDER

31.03.2022

(Oral)

01.

The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has

been filed by the respondent No. 1, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Ramban, who claimed himself to the father of the deceased Manzoor Ahmad

Malik, who was alleged to have died on 10.09.2007 in an accident at Shopian,

while the deceased was himself driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner

as the driver of the said vehicle.

02.

The appellant herein has filed a detailed reply, objecting

maintainability of the claim petition. After considering the objections and

pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1)

Whether deceased Manzoor Ahmad Naik died as a result

of injuries received in a Road Traffic Accident on

10.09.2007 at Shopian, within the jurisdiction of Police

Station

Shopian,

involving

offending

vehicle

No.

Sr. No.60

2

MA No. 24/2014

JK01C/3355, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner?

(OPP)

2)

Whether

the

petitioners

are

entitled

to

receive

compensation in terms of MV Act, and if so, to what

extent and from whom? (OPP)

3)

Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the

time of accident in contravention of terms and conditions

of the insurance policy and driver was not holding valid

licence, thus respondent insurance company was not

liable to pay compensation? (OPR)

4)

Relief?

03.

After perusing the record, the learned Tribunal passed the interim

award dated 21.10.2013 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- under 8No Fault Liability9

04.

Aggrieved of the said order, the appellant filed the instant appeal on

various grounds, including one that the learned Tribunal had passed the order

impugned against the provisions of law. It is averred that law is well settled law

that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is an action in

tort and the legal representatives of deceased have to establish that there was no

negligence on the part of the deceased and the deceased was not responsible for

the accident that claimed his life.

05.

Mr. Gandotra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued

that once the record available on the file establishes that the deceased himself

was a tort feasor, his dependents cannot maintain a claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, and, therefore cannot claim compensation from the

owner of the vehicle or insurance company.

06.

It is also asserted by Mr. Gandotra, learned counsel for the appellant

that even otherwise the application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles

3

MA No. 24/2014

Act, the Tribunal cannot grant interim maintenance. In support of his assertion,

he has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon9ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2019 decided on 07.01.2020 in case titled

<Ramkhiladi and others Vs The United India Insurance and others.=

07.

On the other hand, Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 1 resisted the appeal and referred paragraph Nos. 10 &

64 of the three Bench judgement passed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in

<Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.=

reported in (2004)5 SCC 385. Paragraph Nos. 10 & 64 of this judgement is

reproduced hereunder:-

<10. The learned counsel would urge that the said Act being

a beneficent legislation deserves liberal construction and in

that view of the matter the remedy available to a claimant

against