Case Title:
Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Others
Date of Order:
15 December 2022
Judges:
J.K. Maheshwari, S. Abdul Nazeer
Parties to the case:
Petitioners: Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora, Adv. Mr. Inder Mohan Singh, Adv Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Adv Ms. Vishi Aggarwal.
Respondents: Ms. Garima Parishad, Sr. Adv Mr. Nishit Agrawal AOR
Subject
In the present case, the court is dealing with the claim of compensation under Motor Vehicle Accident Claims by the deceased family contending to insurance coverage of the car.
Important Provisions
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act & Rules
BRIEF FACTS
- On the Date of the accident, 29.07.2012; a 24-year-old man was working in as a Managing Director at DRV Drinks Pvt. Ltd. On the way home from work, the man and his car were hit from behind by a bus owned by the appellant of the case on the bypass road near Sanhwali village (U.P.).
- The man contained multiple injuries and was in a critical stand and subsequently died on the way to the hospital. Further, an FIR was lodged against the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle. On 19.01.2012, a petition was filed in the court by the claimants before MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 4,19,00,00/¬.
- On 04.05.2018; the MACT granted the claim petition asserting a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/ along with 7% interest. The loss of dependency was measured on the basis of the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,09,660/¬ after reducing personal expenses and considering multiplier 18.
- It was contended that the vehicle was not being conditioned as per the terms and conditions stipulated by the Insurance Company.
- Therefore the owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation.
- An appeal was simultaneously filed before the High Court asserting the liability pertaining to no violation of guidelines and the offender and his acts through the vehicle to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. The Special Temporary Authorization permit was present to operate the bus.
ISSUES PRESENTED
- Whether Compensation should be granted in ‘hit & run’ cases where it’s unjustly unclear to identify vehicles comprising of insurance cover directed to third parties.
- Whether procedural delays by the company in incorporating Motor Accident Claims shall be considered compensation for victims adjudicating Section 158.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant contravenes the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant claims for the sum stipulating compensation as there have been no pertinent violations and the car destructed was insured by the insurance company indemnifying the liability.
- The Appellant subsequently contends that the driver has Special Temporary Authorization recognized as a permit to operate the bus regarding which the fee was paid.
- Defending the current findings of the court, the appellant states that the appeal is on the claim that failure to produce the original permit does not lay inference against him when such a permit has been duly issued by Transport Authority and agreed upon under the Right to Information Act.
- The appellant proclaims a valid permit as he presented the due fee on the next day after the date of issuance of the permit and the court’s contents of the permit are invalid striking down the claim of compensation demanded.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The State & the Insurance Company subverted to the evidence of the Court that stipulates that the offending vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the permit granted to the driver & violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
- It has been contended that the offending vehicle was drawn from State transport services way back in 2009 and was no more under the control containing the issue of liability.
- Recognizing Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act under the Claims Tribunal and directing Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Amendment Act stipulating the recourse of the joining of the Nodal Officer of the Insurance Company where the accident occurred.
- A proper party to the FIR must be subjected to a proper party of the place of accident as has been registered in the police station. The specifications of the course of the Claims Tribunal must be facilitated under Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
- The Court decides the following contentions:
- The appeal filed by the owner contravening the issue of liability is hereby dismissed assenting to the order granted by the High Court and MACT.
- An accident caused by a Motor Vehicle in a public place must be overseen by the Station House Officer by taking necessary steps under Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment.
- After the FIR has been registered, the Investigating Officer must consider the case over the course of action under M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022, and submit the FIR within 48 hours to the Claim Tribunal.
- The IAR and DAR must contend before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal subject to the compliance of the provision of the M.V. Amendment Rules 2022.
- The officer on duty is obliged to establish the registration of the vehicle, driving license, permit. He must submit his report to the police officer appearing before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal.
CONCLUSION
The Court asserts the facilitation of cases under M.V. Accident Claims Tribunal illustrating stakeholders and their disruptions in the due course of insurance cover over accidents under M.V. Amendment Rules.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
