Madan Lal and Another Vs. Santosh Devi and Others

Madan Lal and Another vs Santosh Devi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 01, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/755738

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/755738
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ.
Decided On: Dec 01, 2000
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1729 of 2000
Subject: Motor Vehicles;Insurance

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 166--Interim Compensation--Deceased died in accident--Claim petition--Insurance Company plea that violation of policy--Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- as common fault liability recoverable from petitioners--Petitioners are owner & driver--Challenged the Tribunal order in Wri...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles;Insurance
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 160 and 163-A; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madan Lal and Another

Advocate Inder Raj Saini, Adv.

Respondent

Santosh Devi and Others

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 160 and 163-A; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Reported In: I(2001)ACC591; 2001(1)WLC260; 2001(1)WLN66

Excerpt

motor vehicle act, 1988 - sections 140, 166--interim compensation--deceased died in accident--claim petition--insurance company plea that violation of policy--tribunal awarded rs. 50,000/- as common fault liability recoverable from petitioners--petitioners are owner & driver--challenged the tribunal order in writ--sufficient material to fasten the liability on the owner & driver--petitioners directed to deposit the money.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....no dispute in regard to the occurrence on the date in question and involvement of the vehicle owned by the petitioners. the courts have held that the liability to pay compensation in respect of death due to the motor accident is based on the principle of fault at common law. but liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault has come to be provided statutorily by sec. 92 of the act of 1939 substituted as sec. 140 of the new act, 1988. the tribunal is expected only to hold summary enquiry, which is to be held only at the final stage of evidence in the claim case.(4). in the instant case, there was material before the tribunal to show that the deceased died due to the accident and of the involvement of the truck owned by the petitioners and there is sufficient material to fasten the liability on the owner and the driver of the vehicle to pay compensation u/s. 140 of the new act. hence, the order of the tribunal, in my opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity for any interference by this court. however, i make it clear that the amount of compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced in the amount of compensation payable under this sec. or u/s 163-a of the act.(5). consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. the petitioners are directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lakshmanan, CJ.

1. The petitioners are the owner and Driver of the vehicle which involved in the accident. The respondents No. 1 to 8 filed claim petition u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alongwith an application u/S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 26.7.99, the accident took place and that the deceased sustained injuries and also died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that there is violation of the policy, as such, there is no liability of the Insurance Company and they cannot be held liable. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.1.2000 awarded Rs. 50,000/- as common fault liability recoverable from the petitioners. The said order was challenged in this writ petition.

(2). It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has committed error in passing the impugned Award against the petitioners at the preliminary stage and that there is no violation of the policy; but, even if there is any violation, that has to be decided only at the final hearing of the Claim Petition. The writ petition has been filed to set aside the order dated, 5.1.2000 (Annex. 1) and for other consequential reliefs.

(3). Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. In the instant case there is no dispute in regard to the occurrence on the date in question and involvement of the vehicle owned by the petitioners. The Courts have held that the liability to pay compensation in respect of death due to the motor accident is based on the principle of fault at common law. But liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault has come to be provided statutorily by Sec. 92 of the Act of 1939 substituted as Sec. 140 of the new Act, 1988. The Tribunal is expected only to hold summary enquiry, which is to be held only at the final stage of evidence in the claim case.

(4). In the instant case, there was material before the Tribunal to show that the deceased died due to the accident and of the involvement of the truck owned by the petitioners and there is sufficient material to fasten the liability on the owner and the driver of the vehicle to pay compensation u/S. 140 of the new Act. Hence, the order of the Tribunal, in my opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity for any interference by this Court. However, I make it clear that the amount of compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced in the amount of compensation payable under this Sec. or u/S 163-A of the Act.

(5). Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2000 Same Parties Madan Lal and Another vs Santosh Devi and Others Same Subject Motor Vehicles;Insurance Same Judge Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 160 and 163-A; Const...

Motor Vehicles;Insurance