Case Note & Summary
These first appeals arose from judgments dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-3, Nagpur in Claim Petitions Nos. 671 and 672 of 2012. The appeals were filed by General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited (original respondent No.3) challenging the Tribunal's apportionment of 50% liability on it for a motor accident. The common accident occurred on 20/12/2011 at about 11:30 am near Gondegaon WCL mines, when a Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-31/CA-3124 carrying employees of Western Coalfields Limited collided with a Dumper bearing No.M.E.M.L-B.H. 50-MI.3424 coming from the opposite direction. Deceased Umrao Ganpatrao Dupare, aged 53 years, and Arun Namdeo Khobragade, aged 52 years, both permanent employees of the appellant, sustained fatal injuries. An offence was registered at Kanhan Police Station vide Crime No.145/2011 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the drivers of both vehicles. The dependents of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1, owner of the Tata Sumo, contended that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the Dumper driver and that the Tata Sumo was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 insurer denied liability on similar grounds. The appellant Western Coalfields Limited raised preliminary objections: the Dumper was not a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because it was a heavy Earth Moving Machine used only in specified mine areas and not on roads; it had deposited Rs.6,12,360/- on 06/01/2012 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the claimants had withdrawn that amount, thereby barring the claim under Section 167 of the MV Act; and the son of one deceased had been given compassionate appointment, fulfilling liability. The Tribunal, after considering evidence of PW-1 Anita and PW-2 Abdul Bri Mohd. Yakub and documents, held that drivers of both vehicles were equally responsible for the accident. It directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to the extent of 50% and respondent No.3 WCL liable to the extent of 50% compensation. Solely the appellant WCL preferred these appeals, which were admitted on 30 and 31 March 2017 respectively. The High Court framed the following points for determination: whether the appellant proved the petitions were not maintainable against it; whether the appellant proved it was not responsible for paying 50% compensation; whether any interference was required; and what order. At the point where the provided judgment excerpt ends, the court was recording the appellant's argument that the Dumper was not a motor vehicle and referencing a Government of India communication dated 13/07/2020. The final reasoning and operative decision are not included in the available text.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Definition of Motor Vehicle - Section 2(28) - Maintainability of Claim Petition - Appellant contended that a mining dumper is a heavy Earth Moving Machine adapted for use only in specified area like mines and not used on road, hence not a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Court framed issue whether respondent No.3/appellant proved petitions not maintainable against it (Paras 7, 11-12). B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Bar on Double Recovery - Section 167 - Election of Remedies - Appellant claimed it had deposited Rs. 6,12,360/- on 06/01/2012 before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and claimants withdrew it, so petition under MV Act not maintainable due to Section 167 - Court framed issue on maintainability (Paras 7, 11). C) Law of Torts - Composite Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Tribunal held drivers of Dumper and Tata Sumo equally responsible and apportioned 50% liability to owner/insurer of Tata Sumo and 50% to WCL - Appellant challenged its 50% liability, asserting the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo driver (Paras 9, 11). D) Workmen's Compensation - Compassionate Appointment - Liability Discharge - Appellant argued son of deceased employee given compassionate appointment, fulfilling liability - Court to consider whether such grounds negate compensation (Paras 7, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim petitions are maintainable against appellant Western Coalfields Limited when the offending Dumper is alleged not to be a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; whether Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act bars the claim because the appellant had already deposited workmen's compensation; whether the appellant proved it is not responsible for paying 50% compensation; whether any interference is required in the impugned award.
Final Decision
The provided judgment text does not include the final operative decision; it records the arguments and points for determination but ends before the court's conclusion.
Law Points
- A dumper is a special type of vehicle adapted for use only in specified area like mines and may not be a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 bars claiming compensation under both Workmen's Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act
- drivers of both vehicles equally responsible for accident resulting in 50% liability each.
