LACHANDHARI SHAH Vs. RAJ NATH SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi, in Claim Case No. 56 of 2000 dated 26.7.2001.

(2.) The claimants are the parents of one Ramesh Kumar (10) who died in accident on 30.5.2000 when the trolley in which he was travelling fell with heavy jerk, resulting in injuries to the deceased. It is alleged that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Ramnaresh Shah, owned by Lachandhari Shah. Compensation of Rs. 1,85,000 (rupees one lakh eighty-five thousand) is claimed and Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,54,500 (rupees one lakh fifty-four thousand and five hundred) along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application.

(3.) Appellants are the owner and driver of the tractor and trolley. They submit that they are not liable to pay the compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the liability can be fastened in case the vehicle is insured by the authorised insurer, this being a claim under this provision. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the claimants advances two submissions, first being that the appeal is not maintainable, since the appellants did not comply with the requirement of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by making requisite deposit. Mr. Samaiya, learned counsel for the appellants submits that pursuant to the direction of this court, dated 7.11.2001, deposit has been made in Claim Case No. 56 of 2000, in the court at Sidhi. Accepting this statement, it is held that appeal is maintainable. Second contention of Mr. Ruprah is that compensation in this case is determinable on structured formula in Second Schedule to section 163-A (2) which dispenses with pleading and proof of wrongful act, negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or the vehicles concerned or any other person. The liability to pay compensation is of the owner of the vehicle and in case it is insured, the company has to pay the same and the provision cannot be read, as contended by the other side. Printing mistake has crept in the gazette notification placed before the court wherein in place of 'or', of is printed which makes the provision meaningless. There is great force in this contention. Under sub-section (1) of section 163-A of the Act, the liability to pay compensation notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, is of the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer. Authorised insurer comes in the picture, in case the vehicle has been insured with it, otherwise it is the owner of the motor vehicle who is liable to pay in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Samaiya is rejected and that of Mr. Ruprah accepted. One more contention of Mr. Samaiya needs to be answered. The contention is that in terms of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is necessary before liability to pay the compensation is settled. There is no force in this contention. Since section 163-A is a special provision which eliminates pleading and proof with regard to the wrongful act, negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person, while sub-section (2) envisages that the claimants need not plead or prove negligence for claiming compensation under this provision, therefore, there is no force in this contention and the same is rejected.