Whether application for compensation under motor vehicles Act can be dismissed in default?

 The Act and the Rules framed there under also do not empower the Claims Tribunal to dispose an application merely for default of the applicant without arriving at findings on merits of the case, after the stage of framing issues. In the instant case, issues were framed, and thereafter, the learned Tribunal was required to decide the case on merits with a view to provide substantial justice, instead of entering into the technicalities.

6. On perusal of the application and other relevant papers, it appears that the restoration application was filed by the applicants on 22nd November, 2001 and another restoration application is filed on 28th January, 2004, under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code, wherein, the applicants have described the reasons and tried to justify their case for restoration of the application. On perusal of the papers, it appears that the applicants are poor persons and coming from the lower strata of the society as they belong to Tribal Community. Therefore, instead of entering into the technicalities and with a view to do the substantial justice, the Court below was required to adopt lenient view. However, the learned Judge has rejected the said application by holding that there is no provision to restore the restoration application in the Code, and therefore, the application was dismissed by the learned Judge. In my opinion, the learned Judge has also failed to appreciate that the parties to such benevolent legislation should not be allowed to suffer on account of lapse or inaction on the part of their Advocate. The Hon'ble the Apex Court also expressed this view in its judgment in the matter of Rafiq (supra). The Court should adopt a liberal approach in dealing with and deciding such an application.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Civil Revision Application No. 263 of 2004

Decided On: 11.03.2011

 Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Ors. Vs.
Malek Rafik Malek Himantbhai Malek and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.P. Bhatt, J.

Print Page

Whether husband can be denied compensation due to accidental death of his wife if he was not dependent on his wife?

 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
respondent no.1 – claimant i.e the husband of the deceased was earning at
the relevant time and as such was not dependent on the income of his wife
cannot be accepted, in view of the evidence that has come on record. No
doubt, the first respondent – claimant was working in the Irrigation
Department and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- per month,
out of which Rs.10,000/- odd was being deducted towards various
deductions including statutory deductions. According to the evidence that

has come on record, the deceased would spend her entire salary on the
family members and was also paying for her children's education. There is
no serious challenge to this part of the evidence that has come on record.
In this day and age, considering the cost of living, the income of both the
husband and wife are equally important for running the house as they
supplement each other's income. It cannot be generally said that as the other
spouse (surviving) is earning, there is no dependency. When a husband and
wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses,
and in consequence thereof, their joint living expenses are less than twice
the expenses of each living separately, then each, by the fact of sharing is
conferring a benefit on the other. This results in higher savings. In case, one
spouse loses the benefit of contribution rendered by the other in managing
the household, in such a situation, the surviving spouse would be entitled to
compensation for loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in
managing households). In the present case, it has come in the evidence that
the deceased was contributing her entire salary for the household needs
including for the education of her two sons, who were studying at the
relevant time. The said evidence as noted earlier has gone unchallenged.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1271 OF 2014
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3156 OF 2014
(FOR STAY)
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1271 OF 2014
The New India Assurance Company Limited

 Versus
Sunil Parsharam Garud

CORAM : A. S. OKA &
 REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.


 PRONOUNCED ON : 29th OCTOBER 2015.
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR354

Print Page

Whether accident claim petition can be filed in the place where claimant is residing ?

The provision in question, in the present case, is a

benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of

negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction

has to be interpreted consistent with the object of

facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper

technical approach in such matters can hardly be

appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed

at a place where the insurance company, which is the main

contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such

cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure

of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this

Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by

the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed

to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2016

MALATI SARDAR  Vs  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

& ORS. 

Dated;JANUARY 5, 2016

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

Citation; AIR 2016 SC247

Print Page

Duty of court at the time of fixing compensation in motor vehicle accident claim petition

The Apex court in Savita vs. Bindar Singh & others, MANU/SC/0225/2014 : 2014 AIR SCW 2053, has held that at the time of fixing compensation, courts should not succumb to niceties or technicalities of law. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 6 of the said decision hereunder:

"6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (Supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation."

12. A reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, MANU/SC/0662/1996 : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627, in which, in paragraph 12, it was observed that the courts, while deciding claim petitions, must keep in mind that the right of the claimants is not defeated on technical grounds. Relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder:

"12......................... While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of subsection (1) of Section 96 of the Act. It need not be pointed out that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known."

13. This Court also, in the recent past, in series of judgments, has followed the similar principle and held that granting of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and is to be taken to its logical end without succumbing to the niceties of law, hyper-technicalities and procedural wrangles and tangles.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.34 of 2007
Decided on: August 29, 2014.
Union of India and another.
...Appellants
VERSUS
Sonam Chomo and others.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir,
Citation: 2015(2)ALLMR(JOURNAL)94

Print Page

Standard of proof in case of accident claim petition

 The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the reason that in order to prove guilt against an accused in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a claim petition, the claimants have to prove their case summarily and it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle has earned acquittal order. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in MANU/SC/0321/1980 : AIR 1980, SC 1354.

10. It is also beaten law of the land that the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has to be decided on the hallmark of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further also, the claimants claiming compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not to be seen as an adversial litigation, but is to be determined while keeping in view the aim and object of granting compensation. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another,MANU/SC/1028/2013 : (2013) 10 SCC 646.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.34 of 2007
Decided on: August 29, 2014.
Union of India and another.
...Appellants
VERSUS
Sonam Chomo and others.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir,
Citation: 2015(2)ALLMR (JOURNAL)94

Print Page