DIXIT KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. OM PRAKASH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal at hand was presented under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) to question the correctness, justification and propriety of the proceedings and of the judgment passed at the conclusion of the hearing on 18.12.2010 by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on the claim petition under Ss. 166 and 140 MV Act presented on 25.02.2004, registered as MAC case No. 1084/2004 (old No. 543/2003), whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,51,030/ - inclusive of interim award of Rs. 25,000/ - was granted with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal directed the appellants herein, jointly and severally, to pay the said compensation to the respondent (the claimant). It may be mentioned here that the first appellant was impleaded in the said proceedings as the driver of maruti car bearing registration no. DL 3CF 1400 which statedly was involved in a collision against scooter No. DL 8SF 9713 (the scooter) at about 7.30 a.m. on 7.8.2002 at the junction of roads from Tri Nagar and Road No. 37, Keshav Puram, New Delhi near Tyagi Public school. The claimant had stated in the petition that he was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter which was driven by his son Vikas Goyal (through whom the petition was filed) and that the aforesaid car was driven rashly/negligently by the second appellant herein. The car (hereinafter the offending vehicle) concededly was owned by the second appellant herein. It may be added that the first appellant is the son of the second appellant.

(2.) Before coming to the issues raised in this appeal, it is necessary to take note of certain further background facts.

(3.) A claim petition under Sec. 166 read with Sec. 140 MV Act for and on behalf of the claimant, relating to the same occurrence and injuries, was filed before the tribunal on 24.3.2003, inter alia, pleading that he had suffered permanent disability in the aforesaid motor vehicular accident and, thus, was also entitled to interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability. Upon notice, the appellants herein, impleaded as the first and second respondent, appeared in said case and filed written statement on 9.9.2003. It is clear from the said pleadings, as also the pleadings of the case from which the present appeal arises, that the offending vehicle was not insured against third party risk for the period in question. The said petition, filed on 24.03.2003 was registered as claim case No. 543/2003. For consideration of the prayer for interim compensation, the presiding judge of the tribunal called the claimant and proceeded to examine him on oath on 19.2.2004 when it was revealed that he was suffering from mental disability. The learned tribunal deferred the matter and passed an order later holding that the petition had been filed unauthorisedly in the name of the claimant even though he was deprived of the mental capability to understand the documents on which his signatures had been taken. The petition was held to be improperly filed and, thus, not maintainable.