SUDARSHAN Vs. MANGATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before answering the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to make reference to the provisions contained under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which deals with the circumstances and conditions under which the claimants would be entitled to claim for the compensation on occurrence of an accident, resulting to injuries or death. Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is quoted hereunder.

(2.) Whereas, on the other hand, the provisions as provided under the Motor Vehicle Act under Sec. 163-A, it altogether contemplates to deal with a different situation for the purposes of determination of the compensation. Although that may not a bone of contention for considered at this stage when the counsels are being heard against the impugned award dtd. 5/10/2018 where the claim petition preferred by the appellant, has been decided under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been rejected in toto.

(3.) Leaned counsel for the appellant has argued that in order to prove his case before the court below that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, was sought to be prove, the same by producing an oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the claimant to show that accident caused was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, but the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in order to come to a conclusion with regard to the factum of rash and negligent driving, has held that the theory of rash and negligent driving since was not referred to or mentioned in paper no. 9ga, which was the FIR lodged on 13/9/2015, hence no claim could be granted with regards to the accident. This Court is of the view that under no stretch of application of law the contents of the FIR, could be taken as to be the basis to derive the logic of non pleading of rash and negligent driving, there in the FIR, to deny claim under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, which has resulted into the accident. Even otherwise also, if the language of Sec. 166 is taken into consideration, it does not contemplate that for availing a claim, an establishment of pleading by facts to the effect that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is not an essential ingredient for considering of the claim under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, because that would be an aspect, which is required to be considered by the Tribunal at the time when the case itself is being adjudicated on merits. Even the ratio, which has now been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as far as the issue pertaining to the establishment of rash and negligent driving is concerned, was the aspect pertaining to the cause of accident or being the cause due to an act of God, has now been diluted by the judgments of various courts, and it has been held that, each case has to be considered on its own merits and under the circumstances of its own which was prevalent and involved at the time of the accident, which is to be proved by the claimant by bringing evidence on record.