Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Liability of Vehicle Owner – Accident Claim – Determination of Compensation – Victim-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 –The deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital – Claim petition – MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith 7% interest – MACT 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 and, therefore, the owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation – Appellant filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability – High Court affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle owner failed to produce the original permit – Hence, instant appeal – Held:The material available clearly reveals that on the date of accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place – Even assuming that permit was valid but it is of no help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different than specified in permit –The concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any interference.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.146,147,149,159,160,164 and
166 – Just Compensation – Reasonable Compensation – Payment of Compensation – Delay in disposal of claim cases – Payment of compensation in a case of death or for damage to the body in a motor accident claim may be based on arithmetical calculation – How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter of satisfaction of the Court by adopting a uniform approach – In assessing the compensation uniformity and reasonability are required to be followed – Directions issued – Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Motor Vehicles Amendment Act – ss.149(2), 159, 164, 166 – Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 – r.30.
Dismissing the appeal and passing certain directions, the Court
HELD: 1. On the date of accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place. Having extensively gone through the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically recorded by MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove the original permit nor was able to prove the information received under RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it is not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and by whom. The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on Saturday and no explanation is on record as to why deposit of fee was asked on the next day i.e. Sunday. Moreover, assuming that permit was valid as per letter of Transport Authority, but it does not of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different than specified in permit. The appellant has failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via Meerut which did not fall within the route of permit issued by Transport Authority. The said findings of fact have been affirmed by the High Court by the impugned order. After going through the record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any interference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame of being perverse. [Paras 8 and 9][50-B-F]
2. This appeal is decided with the following directions:
i) The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue of liability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the High Court and MACT.
ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by use of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall take steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall take recourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and submit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The IAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the time limit subject to compliance of the provisions of the Rules.
iv) The registering officer is duty bound to verify the registration of the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle, permit and other ancillary issues and submit the report in coordination to the police officer before the Claims Tribunal. v) The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in the Rules, shall either be in vernacular language or in English language, as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules. The Investigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legal representative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies and other stakeholders with respect to the action taken following the M.V. Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce the witnesses on the date, so fixed by the Tribunal. vi) For the purpose to carry out the direction No. (iii), distribution of police stations attaching them with the Claim Tribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the police stations to the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by the Registrar General of the High Courts from time to time, if not already issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules. vii) In view of the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules, the role of the Investigating Officer is very important. He is required to comply with the provisions of the Rules within the time limit, as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effective implementation of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases. The Chief Secretary/Director General of Police in each and every State/Union Territory are directed to develop a specialized unit in every police station or at town level and post the trained police personnel. viii) On receiving FAR from the police station, the Claims Tribunal shall register such FAR as Miscellaneous Application. On filing the IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer in connection with the said FAR, it shall be attached with the same Miscellaneous Application. The Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in the said application to carry out the purpose of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, as discussed above.
ix) The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves with the offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance company with an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. After recording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consent by the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept the same, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunity to produce the documents and other evidence seeking enhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the said enquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement of compensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s). x) The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the amended Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed in Rule 24 and the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall be immediately notified and modified orders be also notified time to time to all the police stations/stakeholders. xi) If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164 or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information, the Miscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shall be sent to the Claims Tribunal where the application under Section 164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal. xii) In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. The claimant(s) are not required to apply before this Court seeking transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court. xiii) If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or
166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are directed to join Nodal Officer/Designated Officer of the insurance company as respondents in the claim petition as proper party of the place of accident where the FIR has been registered by the police station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunal specifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
xiv) Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are requested to sensitize all stakeholders as early as possible with respect to the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. Amendment Act and the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the mandate of law.
xv) For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the liability by the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidence through Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by the insurance company.
(xvi) The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to develop a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate the stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any technical agency and be notified to public at large. Registry of this Court is directed to circulate the copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts and the Chief Secretary/Administrator of all the States/Union Territories for implementation and to carry out the purpose of Motor Vehicle Amendment Act and the Rules made thereunder. [Para 62][81-C-H; 82-A-H; 83-A-H; 84-A-B]
Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 607 : [2009] 16 SCR 710- followed.
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2009 SCC Online Del 4306; Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7626; M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 315approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.