What is the duty of motor accident claim tribunal if claimant is not coming before it for prosecuting his case?

  Taking into consideration the reasons given hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the benevolent object of the M.V. Act, where no claim petition could be dismissed for default without any decision on merits. The learned Tribunal is always require to decide the claim petition on merits, if at all, after giving a reasonable time, the claimant himself would not be in a position to adduce evidence, then the learned Tribunal ought to have called for Form No.54 from the police for verifying the facts and should have granted the compensation amount accordingly.{Para 8}

Gujarat High Court

L H Of Sanjaybhai Ashokbhai Vaghela vs Ashokbhai Bachubhai Vaghela (Parties ... on 12 October, 2022

Bench: Gita Gopi

R/Special Civil application No.6152/2022

Print Page

Kar HC | Strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in matters relating to MV Act, 1988

Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

 Karnataka High Court

Smt. Rukmini vs N.C. Chandru on 2 November, 2020

Author: Alok Aradhe Prasad

Coram:MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE and

 MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD  

Print Page

Landmark Judgment of Delhi high court on procedure to be followed in MACT case

The Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure formulated by the
Committee of the Secretaries/nominees of the Ministries of
Road Transport and Highways; Finance (Department of
Insurance); Law, Justice and Company Affairs; and Joint
Commissioner of Police (Northern Range), to which all the
Insurance Companies have consented, has been accepted by
this Court vide orde

r dated 16th December, 2009. The Delhi
Police has given their consent to implement the Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure on a trial basis as a pilot project
for a period of six months. 
. The approved Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure has
been appended to this order (which will be uploaded on the
internet) so as to enable access by all concerned.

9. The copy of this order along with order dated 16th
December, 2009 and Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as
finally modified and approved be sent to all Claim Tribunals
and Delhi Legal Services Authority through the Registrar
(Vigilance) of this Court. All the Claims Tribunals shall send a
monthly report giving particulars of total number of cases
received by them in a tabular form containing the particulars
of age, occupation, income, number of dependents, amount
offered by the Insurance Company and the amount awarded
by the Claims Tribunals in death cases and relevant
particulars in injury cases. The monthly report of the Claims
Tribunals be sent to this Court through Registrar (Vigilance).
The report with respect to the period between 15th January,
2010 to 14th February, 2010 be sent to this Court by 28th
February, 2010. The same be placed before this Court along
with the comments of Registrar (Vigilance) by 15th March,
2010, which shall be considered on 23rd March, 2010.
10. Copy of this order along with order dated 16th
December, 2009 and approved Claims Tribunal Agreed
Procedure be also sent to the Principal Secretary (Law),
Government of NCT of Delhi for issuing appropriate
instructions to all authorities under Government of NCT of
Delhi for compliance of the order dated 16th December, 2009.
11.The copy of this order be given Dasti to learned amicus
curiae, Committee members, Standing Counsel for Union of

India, Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Police, Delhi
Legal Services Authority and all the Insurance Companies.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 FAO No.842/2003
Date of Decision: 21st December, 2009

RAJESH TYAGI Vs  JAIBIR SINGH 
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

Print Page

Landmark judgment of Supreme court revolutionizing MACT Cases

The learned counsel submitted that in respect of the
legislative changes suggested in the judgment rendered in Jai
Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported
in (2010) 2 SCC 607, there is a Bill already introduced for
amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and that it is currently
pending before the Parliament for consideration. Barring that, one
other aspect which required to be dealt with immediately by way of
suggestion to the Insurance Councils is in paragraph 23, which
reads as under:-
“23. In cases of death, where the liability of
the insurer is not disputed, the insurance
companies should, without waiting for the
decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
or a settlement before the Lok Adalat,
endeavour to pay to the family (legal
representatives) of the deceased, compensation
as per the standard formula determined by the
decisions of this Court.”
Insofar as the said suggestion is concerned, learned Solicitor
General drew our attention to the response filed before us on
behalf of the General Insurance Council, in particular paragraph 4,
which states that presently the procedure suggested in Paragraph 23
is being followed by the Insurance Companies in Delhi by way of a
Scheme called “Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure” which was
formulated by the Delhi High Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2009
passed in FAO No.843 of 2003 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh& Ors. It is also mentioned therein that Tribunal
 as well as the
Legal Service Authority are taking effective steps to implement the
said procedure, which is being carried out in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. In paragraph 5, it is further submitted that
since this procedure has been successful in Delhi it can be
extended on pan India basis. The agreed procedure has also been
filed as Annexure R5 with the response filed on behalf of the
General Insurance Council.
We have also perused the procedure, which has been placed
before us as Annexure R5 with the response which, in our view,
appears to be a comprehensive one and that we can issue further
directions to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to
ensure that procedure is strictly followed insofar as Delhi is
concerned and also circulate the said procedure to all the other
High Courts and the Registrar General of all the other High Courts
are directed to ensure that the said procedure is implemented
through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in coordination with
the Legal Service Authorities as well as the Director General of
Police of the States concerned.
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.11801-11804/2005

JAI PRAKASH Vs M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

Date : 13/05/2016 
CORAM :
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

Print Page

When claimant is entitled to claim damages from insurer of offending vehicle?

 I have gone through the claim petition,
replies and the evidence on record. The case of the
claimant before the Tribunal was that in the said
accident his truck got totally damaged and it was
insured with his own insurance company, i.e. Oriental
Insurance Company, which has granted only

Rs.2,02,000/- as assessed by the insurer. He has also
received Rs.60,000/- as salvage but claimed that he
was also entitled to balance amount as compensation
from the insured of the offending Tata Mobile, which
has not been paid to him by his own insurance
company, for the reasons that the vehicle was
damaged and market value of the vehicle was
Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of the accident but the
insurance agency restricted his claim to the tune of
Rs.2,02,000/-, as per the insurance cap read with the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has
obtained the loan from the Corporation, as mentioned
supra, details of which is already given in para 21 of
the claim petition.
 The Tribunal, after examining all the facts
of the case held that the insurer of the Tata Mobile has
to pay the said amount. Thus, it can be safely
concluded that the claimant has not made claim for the
loss of income. He has claimed damages and loss
suffered by him.
14. The Truck was insured and insurer has
granted the claim only viz-a-viz the risk covered, within

the insurance cap. The said amount plus the amount of
salvage cannot be claimed from another insurance
company. But at the same time he has suffered loss
because his vehicle has totally damaged and he is not
in a position to ply it and earn income, in order to adjust
the loan, the market value of which is stated to be
Rs.3,50,000/-. He has claimed the balance amount of
compensation from another insurance company which
is the insurer of Tata Mobile in terms of a different
insurance contract. Both the insurance contracts are
different and claimant has laid claim for difference of
amount and was entitled to the same. The insurance
contracts are different and the claimant has to claim
balance amount/difference of amount. My this view is
fortified by the judgment delivered by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in case United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. versus K. Chandrasekharachari and
another reported in 2008 ACJ 640. It is apt to
reproduce paras 13 and 15 of the said judgment
herein.
“13. From a reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act
it is clear that the State Government may constitute
Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating 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 or both and such application can be filed by
person sustain injury or by the owner of the property. In
the present case, the claimant who is the owner of the
damaged van who is a third party, filed petition for
damages and in view of the above provisions, there
cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim petition
being filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same
is maintainable.
14. …… ……. …….
15. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the lorry by its driver. This being a finding of fact,
cannot be interfered within the appeal. Because of the
accident, the van of the claimant got damaged and the
insurer of the lorry is jointly and vicariously liable to pay
compensation along with the owner of the lorry and as
per Sections 165 and 166, the claimant is entitled to
claim damages. As the van of the claimant was
covered under a comprehensive insurance policy with
the National Insurance Company, the claim of the
claimant was settled. As rightly observed by the
Tribunal, with regard to the present accident, which
was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry, the contract is between the insured and
insurer and the insurer has to indemnify the insured.
Further there is no contract between the National
Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the van
and the United Indian Insurance Company, which is the
insurer of the lorry that in case of settlement of claim by
the claimant with the National Insurance Company for
repairs, he is not entitled to claim damages from the
United India Insurance Company which is the insurer of
the lorry responsible for the accident. Both the
contracts are for different purposes and operate in

different fields. In view of this reasoning, I answer the
issue in favour of the claimant holding that the claimant
is not barred from claiming damages from the insurer of
the lorry which is responsible for the accident.”
 [emphasis supplied]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
FAO (MVA) No. 3 of 2008.

 Date of decision: 01.1.2016.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.  V Shri Jhenta Ram and others 
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief justice.
Citation;(2016) 3 ALLMR(JOURNAL)46

Print Page

Whether tribunal can reject claim petition on ground that claimant was not understanding content of affidavit of examination in chief?

In   the   present   case   the   appellant   had   no   knowledge   of
English   but   her   affidavit   had   been   prepared   in   English.     In   such

situation   it   was   necessary   for   the   Tribunal   to   have   taken   into
consideration said aspect and it could have directed the appellant to
prove her case on the basis of an affidavit prepared either in Hindi or
in vernacular.   The Tribunal could have insisted for filing an affidavit
in   a   language   understood   by   the   claimant.     Merely   because   the
claimant's counsel  had prepared the affidavit in English, a language not
understood by the appellant, same would  be no reason to dismiss the
claim by holding that claimant had not proved her case.  
It is to be noted that the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Act
of 1989 are beneficial provisions aimed at awarding compensation on
account of untoward incidents to ensure that compensation is granted
in  a  deserving  case.   It  is always open  for  the  Claims Tribunal  in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 18(1) of the   Act of
1987 to regulate its own procedure and insist for filing an affidavit in a
language understood by the claimant especially when it is the mandate
of   Section   18(1)   that  the   Claims   Tribunal    has   to   be   guided   by
principles of natural justice.   In that view of the matter the Claims
Tribunal was not justified in non­ suiting the appellant on the ground
that her affidavit was filed in English and that she was not aware of its
contents.  The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained on that
count.  The point as framed is answered accordingly.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR
BENCH NAGPUR.
APPEAL   AGAINST   ORDER  NO.    49    OF     2004
Shilabai wd/o Raghunath Hemne,
V
Union of India 
CORAM:   A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
Dated    :   SEPTEMBER  14, 2015.
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ345

Print Page