Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1497 (RAJ)

Virendra Kumar v. M. A. C. T. , Bandikui

2001-09-15

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
Honble KESHOTE, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is wholly misconceived and misplaced petition at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution against the interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, District Dausa. (2). Here the owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court. (3). Under the impugned award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the Assurance Company is not liable to make the payment of the amount of the interim compensation under the no fault liability principle. This has been held on the basis that the cheque given for the amount of premium of the policy has been dishonoured. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sita Bai & Ors. (1), New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. (2), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt.) & Ors. (3), and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors. (4). contended that the principle of dishonour of the cheque of the premium will not be applicable in the case of the third party. It is a point which has to be decided ultimately by the Tribunal finally in the main matter. It is not the case where the Assurance Company has been finally exonerated of its liability. It is also not the case where the Assurance Company has been held to be not necessary party to the claim petition and its name has been deleted. So it is only a tentative opinion of the Tribunal. This is not the final decision and petitioner has all the right to prove in the main case that the Assurance Company is liable for the reimbursement of his liability under the Assurance policy to the third party risk. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount of compensation and under the assurance policy this amount has to be reimbursed to him by the Assurance Company. In view of this factual and legal position otherwise also this petition filed by the owner at this stage is wholly untenable, misconceived and misplaced. It is a case where the claimants may have grievance against the order of the Tribunal but not the petitioner. In view of this factual and legal position otherwise also this petition filed by the owner at this stage is wholly untenable, misconceived and misplaced. It is a case where the claimants may have grievance against the order of the Tribunal but not the petitioner. Being the owner it is the first liability of the petitioner to make the payment of this amount and if ultimately he succeeds will get the amount from the Assurance Company. In such matters, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not to be entertained. (5). The legislature in its wisdom has not provided any appeal or revision against the interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal or more precisely the order passed by the Tribunal u/Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The legislature with some purpose and object has not provided any appeal or revision against the interlocutory orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the claim of compensation by the claimants. The purpose is very obvious to give the finality to that order. So far as final award is concerned, it is appealable but the appeal is provided with a condition of depositing of 25% of the awarded amount. When the legislature thought of providing the appeal against the award only after deposit of 25% of awarded amount how for it is justified for the court to interfere against the interlocutory order against which no appeal or revision is provided and that too without a single penny has been paid by the petitioner to the claimants. The law is also well settled that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. (6). The order impugned in this petition if this Court maintains will not result in causing any irreparable injury or any injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner is necessary party to the claim petition. In the main petition the Tribunal has to decide the matter regarding the liability of the Assurance Company. This is only an interlocutory order and not deciding the matter finally. The petitioner is necessary party to the claim petition. In the main petition the Tribunal has to decide the matter regarding the liability of the Assurance Company. This is only an interlocutory order and not deciding the matter finally. The amount of the interim compensation awarded u/Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 is ultimately to be deducted from the final amount of compensation awarded. This dispute inter se of the owner and the Assurance Company is there regarding the liability of the Assurance Company to pay Rs. 50,000/-. When this amount is to be deducted from the amount finally awarded naturally at that point of time the Tribunal will take all the care and where Assurance Company fails to prove its case this amount is to be paid to the owner of the vehicle. This tendency of the owner of the vehicle of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Tribunal which are interlocutory in the nature deserves to be deprecated. Not only this the by filing this petition against the interlocutory order of the Tribunal granting the interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability is in fact contrary to and in derogation of the basic conception, object and purpose of underlinging the provision of Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. This is a benevolent provision having the socio economic object. Interim compensation is to be granted in favour of the claimants so that immediate financial aid comes to their hands. The owner of the vehicle by adopting this course and entering into litigation making all efforts to frustrate this benevolent socio economic provision. (7). Having gone through the interim award I find that this approach of the Tribunal to disburse 50% amount in favour of the claimants is not reasonable and inconsonance with the principles of providing immediate financial aid to the depdendants. In the matter of disbursement and investment of the amount of interim compensation the principles which are to be followed at the time of passing order for disbursement and investment of the amount of final award are to be followed. Otherwise also in case 50% of amount is given to the claimants what it is thought of taking away of this amount by the unscrupulous persons cannot be over ruled. I do not find any justification in this approach of the Tribunal. Otherwise also in case 50% of amount is given to the claimants what it is thought of taking away of this amount by the unscrupulous persons cannot be over ruled. I do not find any justification in this approach of the Tribunal. In case the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has not been deposited so far by the petitioner the owner of the offending vehicle, the same is to be deposited within a period of one month from today and on deposit of the same, the Tribunal is directed to invest the same in long term FDR in the name of its Registrar and monthly interest accrues thereon be paid to the claimants Smt. Kanta in her saving account. The Tribunal is further directed to see that this claimant may not be unnecessarily put to or subject to any harassment in the matter of withdrawal of the interest. The Tribunal to invest this amount with a scheduled/nationalised Bank near to the house of these claimants where they are having an account and necessary instructions be given to the Bank concerned to credit the monthly interest accrues on this deposit in the saving account of the claimants. (8). In the result this petition fails and same is dismissed subject to the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.