AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this appeal, the United India Insurance Company, has challenged the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kathua passed on
1231993 on the sole ground of nonmaintainability of the claim petition by Bhopinder Singh, respondent 1, who was the drive of the Vehicle, which
allegedly met with an accident resulting in the loss of patrol and Diesel from out of the Vehicle driven by Bhupinder Singh himself.
2, Brief facts of the case are that on 1481991ataboutl2:30P.M.acollisiontook place between Oil Tanker No. JKP2232 driven by Bhupinder
Singh, claimant, and JK027787 driven by HarbansLal, respondent. Bal Krishen, respondent, was the owner of the truck. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. was the Insurer of this truck, whereas United India Insurance Company Limited, the appellant in the present appeal, was the
Insurer of the Tanker JKP2232, driven by Bhupinder Singh, claimant (respondent No.l in the present appeal). The case of the claimant was that as
a result of collision between two Vehicles, Petrol and Diesel in the Vehicle driven by Bhupinder Singh, split over and came out resulting in loss to
him to the tune of Rs. 81, 141.20. In the claim petition filed, he claimed this amount from the respondents.
The Tribunals after discussing the points involved in the case held that Bhupinder Singh himself was responsible for causing the accident,
because of his rash and negligent driving of the Oil Tanker and because his Oil Tanker was insured with appellant, United India Insurance
Company Limited, it passed an award for Rs. 76,676/ and directed that out of this amount Rs. 61,341/ shall be paid by the appellant United India
Insurance Company, and Rs. 6000/ by respondent, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the balance amount of Rs.9335/ shall be paid by
other respondents. The amount of compensation was to carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum.
Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, by which Claims Tribunal are constituted, reads as under:
Claims Tribunal (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunals {hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of
adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of Motor
Vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
A plain reading of this Section leaves no one in any doubt that only such persons can approach the Claims Tribunal, who lodge claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury or for damage to any property of a third party. The constitution of the Claims
Tribunal under Section 165(1) is only a procedural aspect. Similarly, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provision has been
made for filing of applications for compensation arising out of Motor Vehicle accident. SubSection (1) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, reads as under:
Application for compensation.(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in SubSection.
(1) of Section 165 may be made
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury, or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all of or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be;
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be
made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be
impleaded as respondents to the application.
A combined reading of the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, clearly suggests that the person who himself cause the accident and out of
whose own act loss allegedly occurred to him, is not supposed to be a person coming within the scope, ambit and purview of either Section 16
5(1) or Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He cannot, therefore, accuse himself of rashness or negligence and attempt to get
compensated for his own fault. These two aforesaid Sections clearly suggest that a person can approach a Claims Tribunal by way of filing of an
application only if such a person accuses another person of doing a civil wrong to him, resulting in loss to him, which he requires to be
compensated for. The doing of civil wrong by the wrong doer against the applicant in a petition under Section 166(1} is the sine qua non of
initiating an action. It is inconceivable that a person initiates action against himself by pleading that it was because of his fault that loss was caused to
him and that he should be asked to compensate himself.
6, It is not that such a person has no remedy in law. If a person is driving a Motor Vehicle and, even if by his own negligence or rashness, accident
occurs to his Vehicle resulting in loss to him, either by way of damage to the Vehicle or the goods being carried thereon, he can always lodge a
claim with the insurer of the Vehicle to compensate him for the loss occurring which, in terms of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance is obliged to
indemnify. If the Insurer refused to indemnify such a loss, it is always open to such a person to take legal recourse by approaching a Civil Court by
filing a civil suit. That is an appropriate remedy. Taking resource to Section 166{ 1) of the Motor Vehicle Act was neither an appropriate remedy
nor a desirable course of action in the present case.
For what has been stated above, I find that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in entertaining the petition and in passing the award in favor of the
claimant. Award accordingly is set aside.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.