Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 82 (CHH)

Lalit Kumar Patre v. Ram Bahadur

2002-09-12

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by an unfortunate claimant in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which has been received on transfer to this Court. In view of the questions involved in this appeal regarding grant of no fault liability Smt. Geeta Shukla, Advocate present in Court proposed to assist the Court by appearing as Amicus Curiae, Record was given to her. As prayed the matter has been taken after some time. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal on 12-4-99 for enhancement against the award dated 10-11-1998 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli. Learned Tribunal found that the appellant suffered permanent disability but, granted only Rs. 5,000/- towards no fault liability. 4. The appellant has filed I.A. No. 3287 of 99 for condonation of delay. The application is supported by an affidavit of the then Counsel. 5. Heard. 6. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, it is allowed. Delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 7. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appellant has preferred a claim case and also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of award towards no fault liability. The appellant had filed certified copy of all the documents like Challan paper, FIR, Medical Report, seizure memo, spot map and insurance paper, before the Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal noted that the injury sustained by the appellant were because of use of motor vehicle and rash and negligent driving, and found prima facie case for grant of award of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act and awarded Rs. 5,000/-. 9. M.P. State has framed Rules, which are known as the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Rules 226, 227 and 228 of the said Rules are relevant for the purpose of deciding application filed under Section 140 of the Act. So far as amount of no fault liability is concerned the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) came into force w.e.f. 1-7-89 vide Notification No. 368 (E), dated 22-5-1989, Section 3(ii). As per Section 140 of the Act for the claim of no fault liability in respect of the death of any person the compensation shall be Rs. So far as amount of no fault liability is concerned the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) came into force w.e.f. 1-7-89 vide Notification No. 368 (E), dated 22-5-1989, Section 3(ii). As per Section 140 of the Act for the claim of no fault liability in respect of the death of any person the compensation shall be Rs. 50,000/- and in respect of the permanent disablement of any person the compensation shall be Rs. 25,000/-. 10. The applicant sustained following grievous injuries:-- (i) The tooth of right upper jaw was broken. (ii) The tooth of right lower jaw was broken, (iii) Third rib of the chest was broken, (iv) Fourth rib of the chest was broken, (v) Fifth rib of the chest was broken, (vi) Sixth rib of the chest was broken, (vii) Seventh rib of the chest was broken, (viii) Right thigh bone was broken. The appellant was admitted in Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Govt. Hospital, Bilaspur for a period from 26-6-98 to 24-7-98 wherein three-four major operations were conducted. Permanent disability certificate was issued to the appellant whereby 30% disability has been assessed by the Medical Board. Copy of certificate has been filed as Document A-1. In view of this evidence prima facie, which is on record, it is a case of suffering permanent disability. The Court below was not justified in not taking these relevant factors into consideration while granting award of no fault liability. 11. The accident itself occurred after coming into force of the new Act. The application under Section 140 of the Act was filed by the appellant and the Claims Tribunal passed the award on 10-11-98, i.e., after coming into force of the new Act. The order of learned Presiding Judge in granting Rs. 5,000/- towards no fault liability is not sustainable in law. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is patently illegal. Once learned Claims Tribunal prima fade found a case for grant of award towards no fault liability the amount of compensation must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 140(2) of the Act. The impugned order is set aside. The approach of the Claims Tribunal in such matters should be realistic and positive keeping in mind that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent and it is social welfare legislation. The impugned order is set aside. The approach of the Claims Tribunal in such matters should be realistic and positive keeping in mind that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent and it is social welfare legislation. It should not be as per the whims and caprice but it has to be dealt with for advancement of substantial justice to the victims as well. Taking undertaking or indemnity bond from the owner can well guard the interest of the owner and insurance company in suitable cases. 13. The appeal is allowed with costs. The amount awarded is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The amount be paid adjusting the amount already paid within a period of 30 days from today, failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a. shall be paid from the date of this order till payment of the amount. 14. Before parting this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Smt. Geeta Shukla learned Counsel for appearing as Amicus Curiae, rendering legal aid free of cost. A copy of this order be supplied to her free of cost. 15. A coy of this order be supplied to the Counsel for the parties. 16. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Tribunal though District Judge.