Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s.166 – Fatal accident – Claim petition – The documents filed in the criminal proceedings in respect of the accident were filed alongwith the petition – Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that claimants failed to prove the accident for want of evidence and the documents produced, since not exhibited, were of no use – High Court dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation – It relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings – Claim petition is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense – It is regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII, which is a complete code in itself – The object of s. 158(6) r/w s.166(4) is to reduce the period of pendency of claim case by making it mandatory for registration of claim within one month from the date of receipt of FIR of the accident – Courts below were not justified in dismissing the claim petition – Claimant had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle – Nonexhibition of the documents was merely a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claim petition – Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs. 11,27,920/- by way of compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident. [Para 16][759-B-C]
1.2 The claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself. [Para 24][760-E-F] United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors. 2011 (10) SCC 509 : [2011] 14 SCR 763 – relied on.
1.3 The object of Section 158(6) read with Section 166(4) of the Act is essentially to reduce the period of pendency of claim case and quicken the process of determination of compensation amount by making it mandatory for registration of motor accident claim within one month from the date of receipt of FIR of the accident without the claimants having to file a claim petition. [Para 19][759-G-H; 760-A]
Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (2) SCC 607 : [2009] 16 SCR 710 – relied on.
1.4 There are three Sections, which empower the Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163-A and Section-166 of the Act. While claiming compensation payable under Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person concerned against whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A ( 2 ) of the Act. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, it also deals with payment of compensation. Section 168 of the Act deals with award of the Claims Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. [Para 20,
23 and 24][760-C-E]
1.5 In the present case, the approach, reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal and the High Court for dismissing the appellants’ claim petition/appeal was not in accordance with law inasmuch as both did not deal with any issue arising in the case. The High Court while dismissing the appeal simply affirmed the award of the Tribunal without assigning any reason. [Para 14] [758-G-H; 759-A]
1.6 The appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in death. The appellants filed material documents to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein. The documents clearly established the identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of the offending Truck, the period of coverage of insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the accident. [Paras 26, 27 and 28][760-H; 761-A-B]
1.7 So far as the driver and owner of the Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore, an adverse inference against both could be drawn. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. The Insurance Company could have adduced evidence by examining the driver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done. On the other hand, the appellants examined three witnesses and thereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case. [Paras 30, 31 and 32][761-C-E]
1.8 If the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the appellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the compensation on such ground. It was nothing but a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claim petition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their case and the respondents did nothing to counter them. [Para 33][761-E-G]
1.9 Thus, the appellants were able to prove the factum of the accident so also the factum of rash and negligent act of the driver causing the accident. It is also proved that the offending Truck was insured with respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and was owned by respondent No. 3. [Para 34][761-G-H]
2. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was around
25 years of age, left behind him his wife and two minor children and was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. Rs.5000/- is taken to be his monthly income. Around Rs. 3300/- is got after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The appellants are also entitled to claim loss of future prospect at the rate of 40%, which works out to Rs.1320/- thus making a total income of Rs.4620/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, Rs.4620x12 x18 = Rs.9,97,920/- is got. Rs.15,000/- is added for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of the estate and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of spousal and parental consortium. In this way, the appellants (claimants) are held entitled to claim Rs.11,27,920/- by way of compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. The amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. [Paras 36, 37 and 38][762-B-E]
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.