Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 631 (MP)

RAMJAN ALI v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

2002-07-08

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2002
SUBHASH SAMVATSAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant against an award dated 25. 11. 1997 passed by Additional Member/ judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sabalgarh in Claim Case No. 16 of 1997. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the claimant is a registered owner of truck No. MPJ 06-1989. He was driving the said truck on 18. 9. 1996. The truck tumbled from the bridge and fell in a river. Due to the said accident, appellant was injured and for compensation of the injuries sustained by him, he filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. ( 3 ) APPELLANT-APPLICANT filed an application under section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act, for grant of interim compensation, on the ground of no fault liability. The said application is rejected by the impugned order. The Claims Tribunal rejected the application for grant of compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by holding that since the claimant himself was driving the vehicle and was owner of the vehicle. There is no third party in the case and, therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation. This award is challenged by the claimant by filing the present appeal. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the claimant urged that even if the claimant himself was driving the vehicle he is entitled to compensation in view of the provision of section 140 (4), motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. xxx xxx xxx (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) xxx xxx xxx"as per the said section, the claim for compensation shall not be defeated by reasons of any wrongful act, negligence or default of the person who has suffered death or permanent disability. As per the learned counsel for appellant, in view of the said section the Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting his application for awarding compensation. (5) xxx xxx xxx"as per the said section, the claim for compensation shall not be defeated by reasons of any wrongful act, negligence or default of the person who has suffered death or permanent disability. As per the learned counsel for appellant, in view of the said section the Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting his application for awarding compensation. ( 5 ) FOR this purpose, the learned counsel for the appellant first invited my attention to Division Bench judgment of this court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamna Bai, 2003 ACJ 127 (MP), wherein the Division Bench has held that the owner of the tractor, deceased was covered within the definition of third party and entitled to claim compensation from the insurance company. While laying the said law, the division Bench has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 8 (SC ). In the case before the Supreme Court the deceased was owner of the vehicle and was awarded compensation as a third party. Another judgment relied by the learned counsel for appellant is K. Nandakumar v. Managing director, Thanthai Periyar Trans. Corpn. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 555 (SC), in the said case the finding of the court was that the driver himself was solely responsible for the accident and in spite of the said finding, the supreme Court has granted him compensation for no fault liability by reversing the judgment of Madras High Court reported at 1992 ACJ 1095 (Madras ). The Supreme court while examining the scope of section 92-A of the old Act of the Motor Vehicles act has laid down as under:"by reason of sub-section (1) of section 92-A, an absolute liability is cast upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By reason of subsection (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. The first part states that a claim for compensation under the section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. The first part states that a claim for compensation under the section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. " ( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of section 140 of the act provides that a claim for compensation shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the claimant. In case of Savitri Bai v. Sandeep Kushwah, 2001 (1) MPWN Note 192, this court has held that interim compensation cannot be refused even if the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased driver and he is entitled to get compensation for no fault liability. Another Division Bench in case of Krishna Mourya v. J. P. Sharma, 1998 ACJ 877 (MP), the Division Bench of this court has awarded compensation to the claimant towards no fault liability. In that case also the finding about negligence is against the claimant. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for respondents places reliance on the judgment in case of Hemlata sahu v. Ramadhar, 2000 ACJ 134 (MP), in which the Division Bench has rejected the claim of no fault liability. The aforesaid case is quite distinguishable. In that case the owner of the scooter was not at all insured by the insurance company and, therefore, the Division Bench has exonerated the insurance company from payment of compensation in view of section 147 of the motor Vehicles Act which says that the insurance company is only to satisfy award against the vehicle insured in respect of a third party risk. In view of the fact that the vehicle was not insured the Division Bench has refused to pass award and this is not the situation in the present case. ( 8 ) THUS, after perusing of the numbers of decisions cited by the claimant, I find that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously rejected claimant's application for grant of compensation under no fault liability. At the relevant time, i. e. , in the year 1996, i. e. , on the date of the accident, the amount of compensation towards no fault liability was fixed Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand only ). ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Interim award passed by the court below is set aside. The insurance company respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand only ). ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Interim award passed by the court below is set aside. The insurance company respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability in the Tribunal. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed. .