Ashok Kohli vs Prakashchand Jain and Others

R.C. Shrivastava, J.—This petition is for revision of an order dated 10-3-1988 whereby, in motor accident claim case No. 4 of 1987, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar, District Guna, dismissed the petitioner''s application for stay of the case u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The said case was the out-come of an application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner and the remaining two respondents for award of compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicle in question was alleged to have been driven by the petitioner, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4. The accident was alleged to have occurred due to negligence of the petitioner in use of the motor vehicle as its driver. A criminal case for an alleged offence punishable u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code was also instituted against the petitioner in respect of the same incident. That criminal case is still pending. Before filing his written statement in the claim case, the petitioner filed an application for stay of the claim case u/s 151 ibid, till disposal of the criminal case. That application having been dismissed, he has come up in revision.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that, unless proceedings in the claim case are stayed till disposal of the criminal case, the petitioner would be seriously embarrassed in his defence in the criminal case because he would be required to disclose his defence even before the criminal case reaches the stage of defence. He has placed reliance on decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, , which was followed by this Court in Mohanlal v. Sheoram 1981 JLJ N 24 and in Omprakash Agarwal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1982 M.P.W.N. N 268. None of those cases arose out of an application for award of compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In those cases, civil suits were stayed till the and of criminal cases arising out of the same matters. There can be no dispute on the point that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court, that proceedings instituted on an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are of civil nature and that the nature of the proceedings is that of a civil suit.

In the matter of stay, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff (supra), the only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment, that, however, is not a hard and fast rule, for special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has referred to Calcutta High Court''s decisions in Jay Narayan Misra Vs. The State and Others, and Ashru Bindu Ray Vs. Chittaranjan Banerjee and Others, , in both of which reference was made to that decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances of those cases, criminal proceedings were stayed till disposal of civil suits.

Special considerations do exist in the present case. In the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, , referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were very critical about delay in disposal of motor accident claim cases. The following observations made by their Lordships at the end of paragraph No. 3 are noteworthy.

A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States arc unjustly indifferent in this regard.

There is no guarantee that the criminal proceedings would not last long. The stage at which it is at present is not known. Experience has shown that, even criminal cases drag on for years. The claim case cannot be allowed to linger on indefinitely to the serious prejudice of the claimants. Then, it is not the contention before me that the motor vehicle in question was not insured. As insurance of a motor vehicle is a statutory requirement, the presumption also is that the vehicle in question was duly insured. Therefore, if the compensation is decided in favour of the claimants, i.e., the respondents 1 and 2, the amount of compensation will be paid by the insurance company. I have not come across any case where the vehicle-driver was actually required to pay the amount of compensation, nor has any such case been cited before me. Generally, the vehicle-drivers do not put in appearance in claim cases, presumably because the awards are satisfied by the insurance companies concerned or, in case of absence of insurance, by the owner of the motor vehicle. The standard of proof in a claim case is also quite different from that in a criminal case and there is no bar to the petitioner taking, in the criminal case, a stand inconsistent with or different from that which he might take in the claim case. In the circumstances, it does not seem to be fair to stay the claim case which, in view of the above-quoted observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Karumai Ammal Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra), has to be disposed of expeditiously. In any case, embarrassment, if any, to the petitioner is outweighed by the necessity to impart prompt justice in the claim case in view of the above-quoted critical observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court.

In the result, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee shall be up to Rs. 50/- (rupees fifty) only, if pre-certified.