Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1684 (HP)

Avtar Singh v. Sawarna Devi

2016-08-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 20th November, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I (Distt. Judge), Mandi, Distt, Mandi, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 110/07, titled Sawarna Devi & others vs. Avtar Singh & another, whereby application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), was allowed and interim compensation under ‘no fault liability’ to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was granted in favour of the claimants and the owner-cum-driver was directed to deposit the said amount, (for short the “impugned order”). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the owner-cum-driver has filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned order on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in directing him to satisfy the interim compensation. 3. It appears that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal and wrong for the simple reason that In terms of section 140, 141, 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself while determining the petition under Section 140 of the Act in respect of the following points. i. The accident has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle; ii. The said accident resulted in death or permanent disablement; iii. The claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. iv. No other ground can be pressed into service at the time of determining a petition under Section 140 of the Act. 4. This Court, in FAO No. 80 of 2007, titled National Insurance Co. vs. Jyoti Ram and another, decided on 19 September, 2014, and connected matters, after relying upon the pronouncements of the Apex Court, has held that Section 140 of the Act mandates that the interim award can be granted on the basis of prima facie proof to the effect that the accident is outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of a motor vehicle, the vehicle is insured and the victim has sustained injuries or has succumbed to the injury. 5. Having said so, the impugned order, so far as it relates to saddling the appellant with the liability, is set aside and the insurer is directed to pay the amount, as granted by the Tribunal, subject to the outcome of the Claim Petition. 5. Having said so, the impugned order, so far as it relates to saddling the appellant with the liability, is set aside and the insurer is directed to pay the amount, as granted by the Tribunal, subject to the outcome of the Claim Petition. The amount be deposited by the insurer before the Tribunal within four weeks from today and on deposit, the same be released to the claimants. The impugned order is modified as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 6. The Registry is directed to send down the record forthwith. The parties are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 1st September, 2016.