Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1634 (HP)

Neema v. Sohan Singh

2019-10-31

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, appellants have assailed the Award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 132-MAC/2 of 2015, titled as Neema and Another vs. Sohan Singh Kangta and Another, decided on 02.07.2018, vide which, the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the claimants had failed to demonstrate that the income of the deceased was not less than the maximum limit of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the award so passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is contrary to the judicial pronouncements made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as they stand indicated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FAO No. 474 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sh. Sihnu Ram and Others, decided on 28.09.2016. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that de hors the fact as to whether the income of the deceased is Rs. 40,000/- or more per annum, once the claim petition has been filed by the claimant, may be under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same has to be decided by the Tribunal on merit and the claim petition cannot be thrown out on flimsy grounds that the income of the deceased was Rs. 40,000/- or more. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and also gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the record demonstrates that for the purpose of deciding the claim petition, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- "Issue No. 1 - Whether the petitioners being successors-in-interest of deceased Kishan Singh, who was employed by respondent No. 1 on the ill-fated vehicle, are entitled to claim compensation in the sum of Rs. 4. A perusal of the record demonstrates that for the purpose of deciding the claim petition, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- "Issue No. 1 - Whether the petitioners being successors-in-interest of deceased Kishan Singh, who was employed by respondent No. 1 on the ill-fated vehicle, are entitled to claim compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest from the respondents jointly and/or severally on account of the death of the deceased in the accident in question as alleged?....OPP Issue No. 2 - Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?.....OPR-2 Issue No. 3 - Whether the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence as alleged, if so, its effect?.....OPR-2 Issue No. 4 - Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 1, as alleged?....OPR-2 Issue No. 5 - Relief." 5. These issues were decided by the learned Tribunal as under:- "Issue No. 1 - Partly Yes Issue No. 2 - Yes Issue No. 3 - Yes Issue No. 4 - No Relief: The petition is dismissed as per operative portion of the award." 6. While deciding Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal returned the following findings:- "As already observed while discussing issue No. 1 above, since the income of the deceased was exceeding maximum limit of Rs. 40,000/- per annum which is maximum limit to maintain a petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the petition so filed by the petitioners in view of the ration of the aforesaid cases cannot be held to be maintainable. Thus, the issue in hand is decided in favour of the respondent No. 2 and is answered accordingly." 7. It is on this sole ground that the claim petition stood dismissed by the learned Tribunal. There is force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants/ claimants that the award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition, is bad in law. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sh. Sihnu Ram and Others, FAO No. 474 of 2010 (supra) has categorically held by placing reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal has been invoked and during trial evidence has come to the effect that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent act and income of the victim was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, the petition under Section 163-A of the of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed. Hon'ble Division Bench has further held that the aim, object and mandate of Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied therein is that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed on flimsy grounds. Hon'ble Division Bench has further held that the mandate of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide compensation "On Structured formula Basis" finally and is not an interim measure. Once it is granted, the victims cannot file claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act for grant of enhanced compensation. But, in case the Claims Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the income of the victim is more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, it is not supposed to dismiss the claim petition. If the claim petition is dismissed on this ground then the aim, purpose and object of Sections 158(6), 163-A and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act would be defeated. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the award, which has been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur District at Nahan in M.A.C. petition No. 132-MAC/2 of 2015, dated 02.07.2018 is held to be bad in law as the learned Tribunal could not have had dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, simply on the ground that income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 132-MAC/2 of 2015, dated 02.07.2018, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the claim petition afresh on merit, on the basis of evidence on record, after affording the parties reasonable opportunities to put forth their respective contentions before learned Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.11.2019. As respondent No. 2 has been proceeded against ex parte before this Court, on the said date, learned Tribunal shall issue notice to respondent No. 2, and thereafter, proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.11.2019. As respondent No. 2 has been proceeded against ex parte before this Court, on the said date, learned Tribunal shall issue notice to respondent No. 2, and thereafter, proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. 9. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.