Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 55 (CHH)

SHYAMA BAI VERMA v. UMESH KUMAR

2002-07-26

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 26. 7. 2001 passed in Claim case No. 2 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Link Court, pendra Road whereby the application for interim award under section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act has been rejected on the ground that truck driver/owner have not been impleaded as party respondent. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on 14. 6. 1998 the husband of appellant No. 1, namely, Suresh Verma along with his relatives was travelling in a jeep bearing No. MP 26 E 0781 belonging to the respondent no. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The said vehicle met with an accident on the way near village Keonchi on account of head-on collision with an unidentified truck coming from the opposite direction. The jeep was badly damaged and Suresh verma received serious head injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 19. 6. 1996. The offending truck fled from the spot. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the accident had occurred and the person had lost his life. It is submitted that the report was not written as the jeep driver has lodged the report. It is not in dispute that the person was in the jeep and for having tea and tiffin, the vehicle was parked where sufficient space was available and it will be subject-matter of evidence. The claim has been denied on the ground that the jeep driver is not responsible and the owner/driver of another truck because of which the accident occurred was not made as party. It is stated that the offending truck had run away. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the m. P. High Court in Shankar Bhai v. Abdul aziz, 1991 ACJ 704 (MP), where it has been held that the award of interim compensation may be passed against one owner of vehicle involved in accident and the owner of another vehicle also involved in accident need not be impleaded. The mere involvement of the vehicle in accident is sufficient and there is no question of adjudging negligence on the part of the driver. ( 5 ) IN the instant case we are concerned with the liability of section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act. The mere involvement of the vehicle in accident is sufficient and there is no question of adjudging negligence on the part of the driver. ( 5 ) IN the instant case we are concerned with the liability of section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act. It is relevant here to quote the provisions of section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. (1) 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 owners 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. (2) 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 fifty thousand rupees 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 twenty-five thousand rupees. (3) 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 owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) 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. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: provided that the amount of compensa tion to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163-A. "from the language of theaforesaid section it is clear that when an accident takes place out of the use of one vehicle or more than one vehicle, then the owner of the vehicle if it is one vehicle and if more than one vehicle involved then the owners of the vehicles so involved are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement as a result of the accident. As such what is important is the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and if the vehicles involved in the accident are more than one, then the owners of such vehicles have been held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant in respect of death or permanent disablement. ( 6 ) SO far as the involvement of the vehicle is concerned, a Division of M. P. High Court had an opportunity to consider the question in respect of no fault liability in case of Mangilal Kale v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. , 1988 ACJ 460 (MP), wherein it was held that when death or disablement arises out of the use of a motor vehicle even though the negligence is not proved, then also the claimant shall be entitled to no fault liability in view of the provisions contained in section 92-A. In that case the owner of the bus was held liable to pay compensation although at the time of the accident the bus was stationary and the deceased fell down while climbing the ladder attached to the bus. Again, in the case of Nandlal v. Madhya pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. , (II)m. P. W. N. Note 99 (Sic.), a Division bench of M. P. High Court held that where the drivers of two buses are responsible for the accident they were both joint tortfeasors and the claimant can claim compensation from one of them alone. Again, in the case of Nandlal v. Madhya pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. , (II)m. P. W. N. Note 99 (Sic.), a Division bench of M. P. High Court held that where the drivers of two buses are responsible for the accident they were both joint tortfeasors and the claimant can claim compensation from one of them alone. ( 7 ) SO far as provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are concerned, these are provided for the benefit of the claimants and have to be construed in that manner. The negligence whether contributory or otherwise, the claimants can claim compensation from one of the owners of the vehicles involved. So far as the interests of the insurance company is concerned, ends of justice will serve if a direction is given to the owner to furnish the indemnity bond that in the event of insurance company being exonerated and if the liability is fastened on the owner, he shall pay compensation. It would also be just and proper to direct further that the claimants are also permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited on furnishing security or personal bond. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submits that the accident took place on 14. 6. 1998, the claim was filed on 26. 2. 1999, the notice was served on the respondents, the insurance company has filed a reply on 25. 7. 2001. He further submits that the matter is pending for the last 3 years and because of non-holding of link camps, such matters remain pending. It is directed that interest be allowed and direction for early decision may be given. No direction on judicial side is necessary. The matter may be dealt with by the District Judge concerned on administrative side and the District Judge shall ensure holding of link courts regularly as per distribution memo and if there is any difficulty, that may be brought to the notice on administrative side. ( 9 ) SO far as the pendency of matters under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act is concerned, it shall be dealt with on priority basis. ( 10 ) THIS appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000. Appeal allowed --- *** --- .