Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 40 (CHH)

Dhano Devi v. Hulas Ram

2002-05-29

FAKHRUDDIN, VACATION

body2002
ORDER Fakhruddin, Vacation J. Heard. 1. The facts of the case are that in an accident's claims, an application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimant was allowed but the entire amount has been directed to be deposited in fixed deposit for three years. 2. Deceased Devendra Kumar died in an accident on 19-12-1999. The vehicle was insured. The matter remained pending and ultimately the order has been passed for grant of no fault liability. The entire amount has been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimant. 3. Provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent. A reading of Section 140 of the Act shows that the amount has to be immediately paid to the claimant. The intention of the legislators is very clear that the legal heirs of the deceased, who died in accident must be paid the amount. Once it is proved that the claimant is legal heir of the deceased, the amount has to be given to her. The direction of the Tribunal frustrates the very object and purpose of Section 140 of the Act and as such it is not sustainablc. The Claims Tribunal should always keep in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and provisions of Section 140 of the Act have been introduced in the year 1988 on the ground of no fault liability and immediate relief. Such order being passed deprives the claimant from his/her right. It is likely that on the one hand no fault liability is directed to be given and on the other hand, it is taken away by the Tribunal. It defeats the purpose of the enactment of the legislation. It also causes more sufferings, In spite of the orders passed by the High Court and the position being clear, such directions are being given regarding interim relief. Due care and caution has to be taken and proper orders should be passed keeping in view the object enshrined so as to promote justice. 4. It is also noted that in a case reported in 1994 ACJ 1311 (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Heirs of deceased Sonabai Jeturbhai alias Faibaben Khatabhai) where there was a 50 years lady, the Tribunal directed the opponents to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the original claimant. 4. It is also noted that in a case reported in 1994 ACJ 1311 (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Heirs of deceased Sonabai Jeturbhai alias Faibaben Khatabhai) where there was a 50 years lady, the Tribunal directed the opponents to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the original claimant. Contention of the Corporation was that if the amount of compensation is paid and if it is withdrawn by claimant and ultimately if the Corporation succeeds then it will not be able to recover the said amount from the original claimant. The Court observed that once it is proved that the claimant is a legal heir of the deceased, she must get that amount. Because she is a poor lady and the Corporation ultimately if succeeds in the claim petition, it will not be able to recover the amount from the lady, is not a ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this, the Claims Tribunal was not at all justified in directing the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit. 6. Having thus considered, the revision is disposed of at this stage. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount forthwith to the claimant and submit report to this Court. 7. Copy of this order be forwarded to Tribunal through District and Sessions Judge concerned.