Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 697 (MP)

MUBARIK SARDAR MOHAMMAD v. RASHID KHAN

2000-07-21

JAYANT GOVIND CHITRE, SHAMBHOO SINGH

body2000
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J. Shri S.S. Samvatsar for the Appellants. Respondent No. 1 is served but absent. None present for him. Therefore, he has been treated as ex parte. Shri Kemkar for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Shri Dandwate for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Shri Samvatsar submitted that in view of provisions of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience) that the Tribunal has to do is to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out by the claimant proving prima facie that he has been injured on account of use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles. In case of death, the L. Rs. of the victim have to prove the same thing. He submitted further that in view of that, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have granted the compensation which has been statutorily fixed to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on the date when the said accident took place i.e. 16-7-1989. Shri Kemkar counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concluded that there was no fault on the part of the driver of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Respondent No. 1 Rashid Khan, who was driving the bus owned by M.P.S.R.T.C. Khargone - Depot. Shri Dandwate submitted that so far as application of Section 140 of the Act is concerned, this Court would be free to exercise the jurisdiction as indicated by the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. He submitted that a just, proper and legal order would be necessary in this matter for deciding the point raised. Provisions of Section 140 indicate in Sub-section (1) that where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owner of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. Sub-section (2) provides that the amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of Rs. Sub-section (2) provides that the amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the amount of compensation payable under that Sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Sub-section (4) further provides that a claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. The cumulative effect of these provisions will have to be properly understood while dealing with the matter in which a claim has been preferred by such disabled person or the L. Rs. of victim or victims. Furthermore, it is important to note that Sub-section (3) has indicated a clinching effect when it indicates that in any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. It means that for the purpose of taking advantage of provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the claimant will have to make out a prima facie case that motor vehicle was used, on account of the use of said motor vehicle and accident took place in which the claimant was injured which resulted in permanent disablement. When the prayer is being decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal touching the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the enquiry or probe should be restricted to a prima facie case only. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to inform itself about the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the Act. If that is done, then the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal need not worry about the possibility of wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicles or vehicles concerned or of any other person. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to inform itself about the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the Act. If that is done, then the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal need not worry about the possibility of wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicles or vehicles concerned or of any other person. In present case the member has given unnecessary importance to the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, truck bearing No. M.B.M. 3247. The member ignored that Mubarik s/o Sardar Mohd. the present Appellant was acting as cleaner of the said truck. The cleaner is not supposed to drive the vehicle nor he is permitted to drive the vehicle. It is not the case that he was driving the said vehicle and said accident took place. Therefore, it was totally wrong on the part of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to reject the claim of compensation preferred by the Appellant in context with the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to inform itself about the benevolent spirit of enactment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has to act for the purpose of pushing forward the said benevolent spirit of the enactment. It is improper on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim of such hapless persons on the flimsy ground or the grounds which are not relevant to the enquiry which is to be conducted by it in view of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. Thus, the appeal (M.A. No. 107/95) is hereby allowed. The order which has been assailed by this Misc. appeal stands set aside. The Appellant Mubarik s/o Sardar Mohd. is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum jointly and severally from the date of presentation of claim petition. The said amount be given to him by crossed-cheque if and whenever deposited in the office of the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Continuing the same discretion as mentioned above this Court's Order M.A. No. 108/95 stands allowed with cost. Mohd. Shaffi s/o Akram Khan and United India Insurance Co. with which the said truck was insured at the time of said accident, shall pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 25,000/-to Appellant Sajabai and others. No order as to costs. Continuing the same discretion as mentioned above this Court's Order M.A. No. 108/95 stands allowed with cost. Mohd. Shaffi s/o Akram Khan and United India Insurance Co. with which the said truck was insured at the time of said accident, shall pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 25,000/-to Appellant Sajabai and others. They are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition. The said amount be given to Sajabai by cross-cheque whenever deposited in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Office. Final Result : Allowed