Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 881 (JHR)

Jaha Ara v. Uma Lall

2008-08-06

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Judgment Mr. G.C. Jha. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2006 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 88 of 2003 by which a sum of As. 1,98,000/- has been awarded as compensation. In the instant appeal the claimants-appellants claimed enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The deceased was driver of Tata 407 truck bearing registration No. JH-02A-9736. The claimants' case was that on the unfateful date accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of one Half Dala Saktiman Vehicle and also due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 Truck. The deceased was aged about 32 years and according to the claimants his monthly income was As. 3,500/- per month. The vehicle Tata 407 which was being driven by the deceased was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. After the death of the deceased the claimants instead of claiming compensation by approaching the forum under the Workmen's Compensation Act filed application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after recording the finding that the monthly income of the deceased was As. 3,500/assessed the compensation amount by taking help of the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment particularly the issue by which the compensation amount was determined as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ' the Act') gives option to the claimants to choose either of the two forums i.e. the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the learned counsel, if claim application filed was under the Motor Vehicles Act then the Tribunal is not supposed to assess compensation by applying the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the learned counsel, if the multiplier theory is applied the appellants shall be entitled to get compensation more than rupees four lakh's. 4. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. According to the learned counsel, if the multiplier theory is applied the appellants shall be entitled to get compensation more than rupees four lakh's. 4. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. As noticed above, it was the case of the claimants that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 Truck, which was admittedly being driven by the deceased, and another vehicle namely Half Dala Saktiman Truck. The Tribunal framed issue no. 2 to decide as to whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 truck causing death of the deceased. While deciding the aforesaid issue the Tribunal found that in the F.I.R it was mentioned that Tata 407 truck was parked in the left side of Patna-Ranchi bye-pass road and an unknown Half Dala Saktiman Truck dashed it from front side causing fatal injury to the deceased. The registration number of the truck, the name and telephone number of the owner of the truck and other description was also traced out during the investigation. The Tribunal after analyzing all the facts came to the finding that the accident was caused not only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, an unknown Half Dala Saktiman Truck, but also due to rash and negligent use of Tata 407 of which the deceased was the driver. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the deceased should have taken care and caution before parking his vehicle. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that there is a contributory negligence and laches on the part of the deceased also. The Tribunal further found that despite the identification of the Half Dala Saktiman Truck and the owner he was not impleaded in the case. 6. There is difference between the provisions of the' Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimants have only to prove that the death or bodily injury took place in course of employment and the deceased or the injured was the workman and there existed relationship of employer and the workman. Whereas in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is incumbent upon the claimant to implead the owner or owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. Whereas in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is incumbent upon the claimant to implead the owner or owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. While deciding the Claim Case under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has to decide rash and negligent driving and fix the responsibility and liability as to for whose negligence the accident took place, if more than one vehicle is involved in the accident. Despite the aforesaid settled principles of law, the claimants have not chosen to implead the owner or the insurer of the vehicle for whose rash and negligence driving accident took place. In spite of serious lacuna in the Claim Application, the Tribunal in order to give relief to the claimants applied the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act for the reason that the deceased was the driver of the Truck owned by the respondent. Even assuming that claim under the Motor Vehicles Act was not entertain able certainly the claimants are entitled to get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act as because the deceased was the driver and the relationship of employer and employee was not disputed or denied by the respondent namely, owner of the Tata 407 truck. 7. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any errors in awarding so much amount of compensation which was admittedly payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. We are fully conscious of the law that if an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by a workman for award of compensation then the Tribunal is not supposed to assess the quantum of compensation by taking recourse of provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. But in the instant case for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act it was mandatory for the claimants to impaled all the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident so that the Tribunal may fix the liability after deciding the extent of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. As stated above the Tribunal has come to the finding that it was the negligence of both the vehicles the accident took place. In that view of the matter also we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award. This appeal is dismissed.