Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Gohar Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9322 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32448 of 2018
Decided On : 15-12-2022
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Death in motor accident – Compensation of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith 7% interest awarded by MACT – Owner of vehicle saddled with liability to pay compensation for violation of Permit – On the date of accident, appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to ply offending vehicle on route where accident took place – Vehicle was being plied on a route different than specified in permit – Concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any interference since they do not outrageously defy logic as to suffer from vice of irrationality and neither incur blame of being perverse. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 146 and 147 – Motor insurance – Limits of liability – A motor vehicle cannot ply on public place nor is allowed to be used at public place unless insured – Exemptions permitted to class and category of vehicles of Central Government and State Government are only subject to order of appropriate Government on establishing and maintaining fund by such Authority. (Paras 24 and 61)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 159 and 160 – Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 – Information to be given regarding accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coordinate with all stakeholders – In the event of a road accident, investigation must be started immediately on receipt of information by police officer of police station concerned – To carry out purpose of provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of M.V. Amendment Act, Officer Incharge of police station and registering authority are required to act upon in a manner as prescribed in Rules within period as specified, thereby on receiving information of accident, complete information regarding such accident is to be made available before Claims Tribunal within time limit without delay – Failure to perform duties by police officer may entail severe consequences as envisaged under provisions of State Police Act – On reporting a road accident Investigation Officer must complete all his action within time frame and shall act as facilitator to victim(s)/claimant(s), insurance company by furnishing all details in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may get damages/compensation without delay. (Paras 27, 29, 33, 44 and 61)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 149 and 166 – Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2022 – Section 164 – Accident claim proceeding – Disposal of – In case of injuries or of death or of damage of property arising out of motor accident at a public place, application for grant of compensation can be submitted directly to Claims Tribunal by claimants – In case of death, all representatives of deceased or any of them may file application – If all have not joined as applicant(s), remaining may be joined as respondents – If claimant(s) apply for grant of compensation, they have option to choose place or Claims Tribunal which may have jurisdiction either where accident occurred or claimant(s) resides or carries business or in local limits of whose jurisdiction defendant resides – For taking recourse under Section 166, application seeking compensation can be entertained if it is filed within six months from date of accident – In case recourse under Section 164 or as per procedure specified in Section 149 has been taken and compensation is accepted by claimant(s), then recourse under Section 166 would not be available – But, in case compensation has not been accepted under Section 149 or recourse of Section 164 has not been taken, Claims Tribunal, in whose jurisdiction accident occurred, shall treat report of Section 159 as claim petition under this Act and may proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. (Paras 39 and 61)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 149 and 166 – Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2022 – Section 164 – Accident claim proceeding – Disposal of – On initiation of proceedings under Section 149 registering a Miscellaneous Application by Claims Tribunal, in whose jurisdiction accident occurred would continue until proceedings under Section 166 has been filed by claimant(s) separately – In the event of filing a separate application and on receiving information in this regard either from claimant(s), or investigating officer or insurance company, proceedings under Section 149 shall be deemed as closed and be tagged with proceedings of Sections 164/166 filed by claimant(s) – In case claimant(s)/legal representative(s) have filed different applications under Section 166 before different Claim Tribunals at different places outside territorial jurisdiction of one High Court, in said contingency Claims Tribunal, where first claim petition is filed shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the same and other claim petition(s) filed by claimant(s)/legal representative(s) in territorial limits of other High Courts shall stand transferred to Claims Tribunal where first claim petition was filed and proceedings under Section 149 shall be tagged with said file – Registrar General of High Courts shall issue appropriate orders for transferring subsequent proceedings and records to Claims Tribunal where first claim petition filed by claimant(s) is pending – Parties are not required to file any transfer petition before Supreme Court seeking order of transfer in such individual cases pending in jurisdiction of different High Courts. (Para 51)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been filed assailing final order dated 06.09.2018 passed by High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 3303 of 2018, vide which appeal preferred by appellant against award dated 04.05.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 1107 of 2012 has been dismissed. MACT allowed claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 31,90,000/- in favour of legal representatives of deceased to be paid by Insurance Company, with further direction to recover the same from appellant-owner who was saddled with liability.
Findings of Court:
Head of Home Department of the State and Director General of Police in all States/Union Territories shall ensure compliance of the Rules by constituting a special unit in police stations or at least at town level to investigate and facilitate the motor accident claim cases. The said action must be ensured within a period of three months from today.
Result : Appeal dismissed with directions.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
In motor accident cases, once an FIR is lodged and information is received by the insurance company, it is the duty of the insurance company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish the accident information to the State police, who shall coordinate with all stakeholders involved (!) (!) .
When claimants or their legal representatives file multiple applications under Section 166 before different Claim Tribunals at various locations outside the territorial jurisdiction of a single High Court, the tribunal where the first claim was filed shall have jurisdiction. Other claims filed elsewhere shall be transferred to this tribunal, and proceedings under Section 149 shall be tagged with this file (!) .
The legislation emphasizes the importance of expeditious disposal of motor accident claims, urging stakeholders including Claims Tribunals to adhere strictly to procedural rules, particularly the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019, and the associated Rules (!) (!) .
The process for filing claims allows claimants to submit applications directly to the Claims Tribunal at the location of the accident or where they reside or carry on business. Such applications must be filed within six months of the accident, and if recourse under Sections 164 or 149 has been taken and accepted, Section 166 claims are barred (!) (!) .
The amendments specify that the police, registering authorities, and insurance companies have defined duties, including immediate investigation, preparation of accident reports, and furnishing of information within prescribed timeframes. Failure to comply may lead to severe consequences (!) (!) (!) .
Insurance of motor vehicles is mandatory unless explicitly exempted by the appropriate Government, which must establish a fund for vehicles owned by authorities or used for government purposes not connected with commercial enterprises (!) (!) (!) .
The liability limits for insurance policies are prescribed, with specific caps on compensation for death, injury, and property damage. Policies must be issued by authorized insurers, and certificates of insurance are mandatory for validity (!) (!) (!) .
The procedure for settlement of claims involves the insurance company designating an officer to settle claims, with offers to claimants within 30 days. Acceptance of such offers results in the claim being settled by consent, with payment to be made within 30 days (!) (!) .
In cases of death or grievous injury, the owner or insurer is liable to pay a statutory compensation amount, which is capped unless other laws provide for higher amounts. Claimants can also file applications under Section 166 for pursuing higher compensation by proving negligence (!) (!) .
The process for filing claims includes the option of direct application to the Claims Tribunal, with specific timelines for filing, investigation, and disposal. The Claims Tribunal is required to ensure compliance with procedural rules and facilitate timely settlement (!) (!) (!) .
The amendments establish that the police and registering authorities must act promptly, completing investigations and furnishing reports within specified timeframes. They are also tasked with facilitating the process by providing necessary information and documentation (!) (!) (!) .
The Rules mandate that police officers and authorities prepare accident reports, conduct immediate investigations, and cooperate with stakeholders to ensure claims are processed efficiently. The police are to act as facilitators, not merely investigators (!) (!) (!) .
The legislation emphasizes the importance of establishing specialized units within police stations and training police personnel to handle motor accident claims effectively, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates (!) (!) .
The Claims Tribunal is directed to verify the validity of accident reports, examine claimants, and ensure that settlements are just and reasonable. If offers are not accepted, claims are to be adjudicated on merits within prescribed timeframes (!) (!) .
The authorities are instructed to develop joint web portals and coordinate platforms to facilitate stakeholders' access to information and streamline the claims process, ensuring transparency and efficiency (!) .
The High Courts are directed to circulate this judgment and ensure that all stakeholders, including police, insurance companies, and legal authorities, adhere to the procedural mandates for effective implementation of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act and Rules (!) .
These points collectively highlight the procedural framework, responsibilities of stakeholders, and legislative intent aimed at expediting and streamlining motor accident claims and ensuring timely compensation.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 3303 of 2018, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) in MACP No. 1107 of 2012 has been dismissed. MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,90,000/- (Thirty-one lacs and ninety thousand only) in favour of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (legal representatives of deceased and hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) to be paid by respondent No. 5 (Insurance Company), with further direction to recover the same from appellant (hereinafter referred as owner) who was saddled with liability.
3. Facts briefly put are that, on the date of accident, i.e. 29.07.2012, the deceased was 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV Drinks Pvt. Ltd. While he was returning from factory to residence, his car was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant on the bypass road near Sanhwali village (U.P.). The deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital. FIR was lodged against the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle and on 19.01.2012, claim petition was filed by claimants before MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 4,19,00,000/- (Four crores and nineteen lacs only) under various heads.
4. The MACT vide order dated 04.05.2018, allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith 7% interest. While computing the loss of dependency, the annual income of the deceased was accepted as Rs. 3,09,660/- after making deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier of 18 was applied. It was held that the vehicle was not being operated as per the terms of permit and was in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore the owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation.
5. Appellant filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability contending, inter-alia, no violation of guidelines as such was there and submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company indemnifying the liability. Appellant further contended that he had Special Temporary Authorization (in short ‘permit’) to operate the bus on the route for which the fee was paid. The High Court vide impugned order affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle owner failed to produce the original permit and also could not get the same proved calling the person from the Transport Department, in absence, the Claims Tribunal rightly decided the issue of liability against the owner.
6. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant contested the instant appeal largely on the ground that failure to produce the original permit cannot lead to an inference against him, especially when such permit has been duly issued by Transport Authority and confirmed in the reply under Right to Information Act (for short ‘RTI Act’). It was further contended that the appellant had valid permit as he deposited the due fee on the next day after the date of issuance of permit and hence, the finding of Courts below that the appellant did not have a valid permit, as such fastened the liability for payment of compensation is unjust.
7. Per contra, the State as well as Insurance Company mainly relied on the findings recorded by the Courts below to contend that the offending vehicle was not being plied as per the terms and conditions of the permit and also in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has further been contended that the offending vehicle stood withdrawn from State transport services way back in 2009 and was no more under the control of respondent No. 1, hence, the issue of liability has rightly been decided.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it clea
(1) Motor accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coo....
Point of Law : Benefit under Act, cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation, thus, the Trial Court having applied Section 5 of Limitation Act to the fact situation, Court do n....
The police report filed under Section 159 should be treated as an application for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Amendments to procedural guidelines improve accident claim inquiries under the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring faster compensation delivery.
An insurer remains liable under the 'pay and recovery' principle for policies issued prior to the 2019 amendment, as contractual obligations and liability criteria are determined according to the law....
The insurer remains liable for compensation despite the rider lacking a valid license as the policy was issued before the relevant amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, the powers of the Claims Tribunal, and the role of the Insurance Company in defending clai....
The Motor Vehicles Act mandates that its provisions be applied beneficially, allowing for the condonation of delay in claim petitions despite strict statutory timelines in the interest of delivering ....
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
