VIMLA DEVI & ORS. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. on 16 November 2018

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 753

VIMLA DEVI & ORS.

v.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018)

NOVEMBER 16, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

s.166 – Fatal accident – Claim petition – The documents filedin the criminal proceedings in respect of the accident were filedalongwith the petition – Tribunal dismissed the petition holding thatclaimants failed to prove the accident for want of evidence and thedocuments produced, since not exhibited, were of no use – HighCourt dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: The Act is a beneficialpiece of legislation – It relieves the victims from ensuring strictcompliance provided in law which are otherwise applicable to thesuits and other proceedings – Claim petition is neither a suit nor anadversarial lis in the traditional sense – It is regulated by theprovisions of Chapter XII, which is a complete code in itself – Theobject of s. 158(6) r/w s.166(4) is to reduce the period of pendencyof claim case by making it mandatory for registration of claim withinone month from the date of receipt of FIR of the accident – Courtsbelow were not justified in dismissing the claim petition – Claimanthad adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rashand negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle – Non-exhibition of the documents was merely a procedural lapse, whichcould not be made basis to reject the claim petition – Taking intoconsideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, theclaimants are held entitled to claim Rs. 11,27,920/- by way ofcompensation from the respondents jointly and severally.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficialpiece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of themotor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Actis designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Astrict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicableto the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claimpetition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for theloss sustained by them in the accident. [Para 16][759-B-C]

1.2 The claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suitBnor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceedingin terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself. [Para 24][760-E-F]

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta &Ors. 2011 (10) SCC 509 : [2011] 14 SCR 763 – reliedCon.

1.3 The object of Section 158(6) read with Section 166(4)of the Act is essentially to reduce the period of pendency of claimcase and quicken the process of determination of compensationamount by making it mandatory for registration of motor accidentDclaim within one month from the date of receipt of FIR of theaccident without the claimants having to file a claim petition.[Para 19][759-G-H; 760-A]

Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (2)SCC 607 : [2009] 16 SCR 710 – relied on.E

E1.4 There are three Sections, which empower the ClaimsTribunal to award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140,Section 163-A and Section-166 of the Act. While claimingcompensation payable under Section 140 and Section 163A ofthe Act, the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act,neglect or default of the person concerned against whom the claimFis made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A ( 2 ) of theAct. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, it also dealswith payment of compensation. Section 168 of the Act deals withaward of the Claims Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Actprovides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. [Para 20,G23 and 24][760-C-E]

1.5 In the present case, the approach, reasoning and theconclusion of the Tribunal and the High Court for dismissing theappellants’ claim petition/appeal was not in accordance with lawinasmuch as both did not deal with any issue arising in the case.

H

The High Court while dismissing the appeal simply affirmed theaward of the Tribunal without assigning any reason. [Para 14][758-G-H; 759-A]

1.6 The appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to provethe accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver ofthe offending vehicle, which resulted in death. The appellantsfiled material documents to prove the factum of the accident andthe persons involved therein. The documents clearly establishedthe identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the identity ofthe driver driving the truck, the identity of the owner of the Truck,the name of the insurer of the offending Truck, the period ofcoverage of insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging ofFIR in the concerned police station in relation to the accident.[Paras 26, 27 and 28][760-H; 761-A-B]

1.7 So far as the driver and owner of the Truck wereconcerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore,an adverse inference against both could be drawn. So far as theInsurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine anywitness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. The InsuranceCompany could have adduced evidence by examining the driverof the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done. Onthe other hand, the appellants examined three witnesses andthereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case.[Paras 30, 31 and 32][761-C-E]

1.8 If the Court did not exhibit the documents despite theappellants referring them at the time of recording evidence thenin such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right toclaim the compensation on such ground. It was nothing but aprocedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject theclaim petition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oraland documentary evidence to prove their case and therespondents did nothing to counter them. [Para 33][761-E-G]

1.9 Thus, the appellants were able to prove the factum ofthe accident so also the factum of rash and negligent act of thedriver causing the accident. It is also proved that the offendingTruck was insured with respondent No. 1 at the time of accidentand was owned by respondent No. 3. [Para 34][761-G-H]

A

BC

DE

FG

H

A2. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was around25 years of age, left behind him his wife and two minor childrenand was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. Rs.5000/- is takento be his monthly income. Around Rs. 3300/- is got after deducting1/3[rd] towards personal expenses. The appellants are also entitledto claim loss of future prospect at the rate of 40%, which worksBout to Rs.1320/- thus making a total income of Rs.4620/-. Applyingthe multiplier of 18, Rs.4620x12 x18 = Rs.9,97,920/- is got.Rs.15,000/- is added for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss ofthe estate and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of spousal and parentalconsortium. In this way, the appellants (claimants) are held entitledCto claim Rs.11,27,920/- by way of compensation from therespondents jointly and severally. The amount awarded by thisCourt shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date ofclaim petition till realization. [Paras 36, 37 and 38][762-B-E]

Case Law Reference

of 2018

EFrom the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No. 1739 of 2007.

Maruf Khan, Prateek Tiwari, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advs.for the Appellants.FMs. Meenakshi Midha, Kapil Midha, Ms. Abhivandana Chowdhury,Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.G

2. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the final judgmentand order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature forRajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 1739 of 2007 whereby theHigh Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants and affirmed theaward dated 05.12.2005 passed by the MACT Chomu (Jaipur) in MACCase No. 48/2005.H

3. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the case, it isnecessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

4. The appellants are the claimants/plaintiffs whereas therespondents are the non-applicants/defendants in the claim petition outof which this appeal arises.

5. One Rajendra Prasad aged around 25 years was travelling inthe passenger Bus bearing No.RJ-07-P-2151 as its bona fide passengeron 03.06.2003 for going to a place called “Chomu”. When the Busreached near Police Station, Chomu, a Truck bearing No. HR-55A-7729, which was going towards Jaipur from Chomu came on a highspeed and dashed against Bus. The impact of dash against the Bus wasso violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was sitting inside the Bus, sustainedgrievous injuries resulting in his instant death. This led to filing of theFIR No. 214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.

6. It is this incident, which gave rise to initiation of two legalproceedings, namely, criminal and civil. So far as the criminal proceedingsare concerned, a charge sheet (1/2003) was filed by the State againstthe driver of the offending Truck in the Court of Magistrate under Section304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).

7. So far as the civil proceedings are concerned with which weare concerned in this appeal were filed by the appellants herein(claimants), who are the wife and the two minor children of the deceased,against the Insurance Company (respondent No. 1), driver (respondentNo. 2) and the owner (respondent No. 3) of the offending Truck underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “theAct”) before the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal, Chomuclaiming therein to award reasonable compensation to them for the losssustained on account of untimely death of Rajendra Prasad-their onlybread earner in the family.

8. The appellants along with their claim petition filed all thosedocuments, which were filed by the State in the criminal proceedingsagainst the driver, such as FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post mortemreport of the deceased, registration of Truck No. HR -A-7729, insurancecoverage, mechanical inspection report, copy of notice issued to theowner under Section 133 of the Act etc.

9. So far as the driver and owner of the offending Truck areconcerned, since inception both remained ex parte in the proceedings.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASo far as the Insurance Company (insurer) is concerned, they aloneentered appearance and filed the written statement. The InsuranceCompany, however, contended inter alia in their written statement thatfirstly, the owner of the Truck did not give any intimation to the InsuranceCompany; Secondly, the owner and the driver of the bus were notimpleaded as party in the proceedings; and Thirdly, the owner of theBoffending Truck did not send a copy of the driving license of the driver tothe Insurance Company to enable them to make an inquiry about itsgenuineness (see Para 3 of the award).

10. The claimants examined three witnesses in support of theircase. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness. By awardCdated 05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim petition.It was held that the claimants failed to prove the accident includinginvolvement of offending Truck, which caused death of Rajendra Prasad.It was held that though the claimants filed the documents but since thosedocuments were not exhibited, the Insurance Company could not cross-Dexamine the claimants’ witnesses on the documents. In short, the Tribunalheld that the claimants failed to prove the accident for want of evidenceand the one adduced was not exhibited and hence was of no use. Thesewere basically the two findings on which the claim petition was dismissed.

11. The claimants felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High CourtEfor Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. By impugned order, the High Courtdismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appealby way of special leave by the claimants in this Court.

12. Heard Mr. Maruf Khan, learned counsel for the appellantsand Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1.F

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal andwhile setting aside the impugned order allow the claim petition filed bythe appellants (claimants) and award reasonable compensation to theappellants as indicated infra.G14. In our considered opinion, the approach, reasoning and the

14. In our considered opinion, the approach, reasoning and theconclusion of the Tribunal and the High Court for dismissing the appellants’claim petition/appeal was not in accordance with law inasmuch as bothdid not deal with any issue arising in the case. The High Court while dismissing the appeal simply affirmed the award of the Tribunal withoutassigning any reason.

15. Before we examine the factual matrix of the case at hand, itis apposite to take note of the provisions of the Act, which have relevancewhile deciding the claim petition.

16. At the outset, we may reiterate as has been consistently saidby this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial piece oflegislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accidentwho suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner,which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided inlaw, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedingswhile prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claimingcompensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident.

17. Section 158 of the Act casts a duty on a person driving amotor vehicle to produce certain certificates, driving licence and permiton being required by a police officer to do so in relation to the use of thevehicle. Sub-section (6), which was added by way of amendment in1994 to Section 158 casts a duty on the officer in-charge of the policestation to forward a copy of the information (FIR)/report regarding anyaccident involving death or bodily injury to any person within 30 daysfrom the date of information to the Claim Tribunal having jurisdictionand also send one copy to the concerned insurer. This sub-section alsocasts a duty on the owner of the offending vehicle, if a copy of theinformation is made available to him, to forward the same to the ClaimsTribunal and the insurer of the vehicle.

18. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the report of theaccident on its receipt as if it is an application made by the claimant foraward of the compensation to him under the Act by virtue of Section166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction to decide such application onmerits in accordance with law.

19. The object of Section 158(6) read with Section 166(4) of theAct is essentially to reduce the period of pendency of claim case andquicken the process of determination of compensation amount by makingit mandatory for registration of motor accident claim within one monthfrom the date of receipt of FIR of the accident without the claimants A

B

C

DE

F

G

Ahaving to file a claim petition. (See Jai Prakash vs. National InsuranceCo. Ltd., 2010 (2) SCC 607).

20. There are three Sections, which empower the Claims Tribunalto award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163-Aand Section-166 of the Act.

B

21. So far as Section 140 of the Act is concerned, it deals with thecases for award of compensation based on the principle of no fault liability.

22. So far as Section 163A of the Act is concerned, it deals withspecial provisions as to payment of compensation and is based onstructured formula as specified in Second Schedule appended to theAct.

C

23. While claiming compensation payable under Section 140 andSection 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove anywrongful act, neglect or default of the person concerned against whomthe claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A ( 2 ) ofDthe Act.

24. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, it also dealswith payment of compensation. Section 168 of the Act deals with awardof the Claims Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides procedureand powers of the Claims Tribunal. As has been held by this Court (ThreeJudge Bench), the claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit noran adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in termsof and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is acomplete Code in itself. (See United India Insurance Company Ltd.vs Shila Datta & Ors., 2011 (10) SCC 509).

E

F

F25. Keeping in view the aforementioned principle of law whenwe examine the facts of the case at hand, we are of the consideredopinion that the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified indismissing the appellants’ claim petition. In our view, the appellants’ claimpetition ought to have been allowed for awarding reasonablecompensation to the appellants in accordance with law. This we say forGthe following reasons.

26. First, the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to provethe accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of theoffending vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad.

H

27. Second, the appellants filed material documents to prove thefactum of the accident and the persons involved therein.

28. Third, the documents clearly established the identity of theTruck involved in the accident, the identity of the driver driving the truck,the identity of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of theoffending Truck, the period of coverage of insurance of the Truck, thedetails of the lodging of FIR in the concerned police station in relation tothe accident.

29. In our view, what more documents could be filed than thedocuments filed by the appellants to prove the factum of the accidentand the persons involved therein.

30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck wereconcerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore, neithercontested the appellants’ claim petition nor entered into the witness boxto rebut the allegations of the appellants made in the claim petition andthe evidence. An adverse inference against both could be drawn.

31. Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, theyalso did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. TheInsurance Company could have adduced evidence by examining thedriver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done.

32. Sixth, on the other hand, the appellants examined three witnessesand thereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case.

33. Seventh, if the Court did not exhibit the documents despite theappellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in suchevent, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim thecompensation on such ground. In our opinion, it was nothing but aprocedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claimpetition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oral anddocumentary evidence to prove their case and the respondents did nothingto counter them.

34. In the light of the aforementioned seven reasons, we are ofthe considered opinion that the appellants were able to prove the factumof the accident so also the factum of rash and negligent act of the drivercausing the accident. It is also proved that the offending Truck wasinsured with respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and was owned byrespondent No. 3.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A35. This takes us to consider the next question as to how muchcompensation the appellants are entitled to claim for the death of theirbread earner-Rajendra Prasad.

36. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was around 25years of age and left behind him his wife and two minor children. It hasBalso come in evidence that he was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month.

37. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case,we consider it proper to take Rs.5000/- to be his monthly income.Deducting 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses, we get around Rs.3300/-.The appellants are also entitled to claim loss of future prospect at theCrate of 40%, which works out to Rs.1320/- thus making a total incomeof Rs.4620/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, we get Rs.4620x12 x18 =Rs.9,97,920/-..

38. To the aforementioned amount, we add and accordingly awardRs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of the estate andDRs.1,00,000/- for loss of spousal and parental consortium. In this way,the appellants (claimants) are held entitled to claim Rs.11,27,920/- byway of compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. Theamount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.from the date of claim petition till realization.

E39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The appellants’ claim petition isallowed in part as indicated above against the respondents jointly andseverally.

40. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to depositthe awarded sum within 3 months with the Claims Tribunal for beingFpaid to the appellants after proper verification.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

G

H