Pretma Mukerji and Another vs Union of India and Another

Heard Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.K. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anil Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1.

The instant first appeal from order arises against the judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow by which the claim petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the claim petition, the appellants have stated that on account of accident which occurred on 25.8.1989, at about 0640 hrs. near Indira Canal river crossing, Police Station Gosainganj, district Lucknow, Major Satyaki Mukherji, the husband of the appellant No.1 and father of the appellant No.2 had died. In the claim petition, the appellants have specifically stated that the accident occurred due to composite negligence and rash act of the drivers of both the truck and the train.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in a most arbitrary and illegal manner the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 8 SCC 683, Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others and 1990(1) ACJ 1, Union of India v. Sushila Devi and others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if it is the case of composite negligence, the claim petition will lie before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The relevant part of para 46 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

�46. For all the above reasons, we hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if arising out of use of the motor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against the Railways if its negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved.�

Sri Anil Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 is not disputing about the legal position that if the accident has occurred on the basis of composite negligence of the driver of the Motor Vehicle and the other outside agency, the claim petition will lie before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The claim petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow by the judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 only on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others has held that if it is the case of composite negligence of the driver of the Motor Vehicle and other outside agency, the claim petition will lie before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow is legally not sustainable.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance to law. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow shall decide the claim petition on priority basis within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.

(Appeal allowed)