THEETHI Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a motor accident claim case involving the death of a person in a collision of two motor vehicles. The question for determination is whether the amount of compensation under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is payable without establishing the identity of both the vehicles and wrongful act or neglect of the owners of the vehicles, which resulted in the accident causing the death.

(2.) The petitioners' son, Rajendraprasad, was travelling in a taxi car on 22-11-1992 and in the course of the journey it was hit by a lorry which resulted in his death. Alter the accident the lorry was driven away swiftly leaving no chance to trace out its identity. However, the identity of the taxi-car was available since the deceased had travelled in the car. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a petition, O.P.(M.V.) No.181 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased, who was the bread winner of the family and they were depending on him for their means of livelihood. They further filed an interlocutory application I.A.No.862 of 1994 under S.140 of the Act praying for a direction to the respondents to pay an interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'no fault liability'. However, this application was opposed by the third respondent therein, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Palakkad, contending that it was a 'hit-and-run' case and hence the application was not maintainable. The Tribunal, however, rejected the application as per Ext. P3 order dated 1-4-1995. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the fourth respondent contends that the police could not direct the lorry which hit the taxi car and they had therefore filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court on 30-3-1993 to that effect. His further case is that this being a 'hit-and-run' case, the special provisions contained in S.161 of the Act alone will apply and hence, the petition under S.140 is not maintainable