PARMANAND Vs. COMMR COAL MINES WELFARE ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question which arises in this case is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') constituted under S.110, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of compensation in respect of an accident involving the death or bodily injury to a person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle not covered by a policy of insurance. On the application of the appellant claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 13,620/-. The opposite party filed an appeal in this Court under S.110D of the Act which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 1978(R). A learned single Judge of this Court, who heard the appeal, held that the remedy of the claimant was by way of a suit in the Civil Court and the application before the Tribunal was not maintainable. He also held that the claim petition was fit to be rejected on the additional ground that it was filed by the father of the injured minor boy and not by the boy himself. The award was accordingly set aside. The present appeal under Cl.10 Letters Patent, is directed against this judgement.

(2.) The accident took place in June, 1971 when Bachanand Thakur, a young boy, was run over by a truck belonging to the opposite party-respondent, a Welfare Organisation, which is exempted by Sub-S. (3) of S.94 of the Act from the requirement of getting its vehicles insured. The boy sustained serious injuries, and his father moved the Tribunal claiming compensation of over Rs. 53000/-. The opposite party contested the claim on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable. As stated earlier, the Tribunal rejected the defence and allowed the claim partially.

(3.) In support (of) his view that the claim petition was not maintainable on the ground that the truck involved in the accident was not covered by an insurance policy, the learned single Judge strongly relied on the heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against 3rd party Risk "of Chapter VIII in which the provisions relating to the constitution of Tribunals and their jurisdiction are included, and on S.96 directing the insurer to pay the awarded sum. Mr. Debi Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the provisions of Chap. VIII support this view. Referring to the Proviso in S.94(3) which is quoted below, the learned counsel argued that the requirements of establishing and maintaining a fund for meeting liabilities arising out of road accidents involving uninsured vehicles has been inserted for the reason that the claim arising out of such accidents are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal;