Kartar Singh vs Udham Singh Shani and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—In an accident which took place on March 24, 1986, Gurpreet Kaur wife of Udham Singh died. The claim petition was filed by her husband and her minor son Baneet Singh on June 13, 1986. During the pendency of this claim petition, they also moved an application u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ''the Act'') on May 11, 1987, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on the principle of no fault liability. This application was contested on behalf of the owner of the truck, alleged to have caused the accident. According to the plea of the truck owner, his truck was never involved in the accident. However, the Tribunal, relying on the written statement filed on behalf of the truck owner, came to the conclusion that the moment it is admitted that the vehicle was involved in the accident, then without enquiring into the correctness of other objections which may be raised by the insurance company and the owner of the truck, the claimants were entitled to an award u/s 92-A of the Act Consequently, vide the impugned order dated June 4,1987, he awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- u/s 92-A of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act were not attracted as the death has not resulted from an accident arising out of the use of the truck owned by him. According to him, it was some other truck which was involved, but the claimants have wrongly impleaded him as Respondent According to the learned Counsel, even in the First Information Report lodged by the claimants immediately after the accident his truck number was never given therein. According to the learned Counsel, there is no admission in the written statement as found by the learned Tribunal. Rather, it has been denied that his truck was involved in the accident though in the alternative it was pleaded that the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the rickshaw puller.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I am of the considered view that no case was made out for claiming compensation u/s 92-A of the Act by the claimants. Under the said section, where the death has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner and the insurance company shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. What is required to be proved is that the accident, which resulted in causing the death, must have arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle. In the present case, in the written statement filed on behalf of the truck owner, it was denied and it was pleaded that his truck was never involved in the alleged accident. It was made clear in reply to para 17 of the claim petition. Again in para 24 it was reiterated that it is absolutely false and is denied. The truck in question was not involved in the alleged accident. He was arrested later on and falsely implicated in the case. Alternatively, the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the rickshaw puller. It is this plea in the alternative on the basis of which the learned Tribunal found that it was admitted that the vehicle was involved in the accident. This approach is wholly wrong and misconceived. There is no such admission on the part of the truck owner Kartar Singh in the written statement In these circumstances unless it was proved by any cogent evidence that the said truck was involved in the accident, no claim could be allowed u/s 92-A of the Act. It may be made clear that whether the truck was involved or not is to be proved independently and once it is so proved, then for a claim u/s 92-A of the Act it becomes immaterial that who was at fault for causing the accident. In the present case, the very fact that whether the said truck was involved or not, is disputed by Kartar Singh and there being no cogent evidence to prove that this truck was involved, the claim petition u/s 92-A of the Act was not maintainable.

Not only that, from the conduct of the claimants, it appears that as this application u/s 92-A of the Act was filed after about a year from the original claim petition, which further shows that they were not sure as to whether the said truck was involved or not. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.

It has been stated at the Bar that the evidence of the claimants is being recorded. Thus, in order to expedite the hearing of the claim petition, it is directed that the parties will lead their evidence at their own responsibility though dasti summonses may be given to them, if so desired, as provided under Order 16, Rule 7-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.