LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-128

SATISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. MANOJ

Decided On March 26, 2021
SATISH CHAND SHARMA Appellant
V/S
MANOJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Abhishek, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Nishant Mehrotra appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. None appears for the owner of the vehicle. We had partly allowed the appeal but had kept reasons to be penned later on as the Courts were closing on the Holi Vacations. We now pens our reason for allowing the appeal filed at the behest of claimants who have been put to great injustice by the orders of the Tribunals from 2013 till today which lost sight of the beneficial provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) This appeal, at the behest of the claimant (now deceased) through his heirs, challenges the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 2005 (Deceased Satish Chand Sharma and others Vs. Manoj and another and a relief has been sought that this Court be pleased to enhance the amount under the impugned award and this Court also be pleased to allow the claim petition in toto.

(3.) History of dates and events are more important as we are concerned with what can be said to be justice and not only giving decision or giving compensation to the injured but also to see that there is no miscarriage of justice by adopting procedure not conducive to beneficial piece of legislation and redress the problem by doing justice. The provisions of Chapter XI partakes within it laudable object to ensure that third party, who suffered because of accident will be compensated, even if financial condition of the driver or the owner, who caused the accident, was not sound. The provisions have to be construed in a manner so that the laudable object of Chapter XI is fulfilled. The term 'legal representative' is taken up as the author feels that despite several decisions interpreting the term legal representative under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and1988., the Insurance Companies are challenging the same day in day out though in some cases the issue is no longer res integra.