Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani. The appellants, being the widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased Vishwanath Mundhe, sought compensation of Rs. 17,40,000/- for his death in a road accident on 20/3/2007. The deceased was riding a motorcycle when a jeep bearing No. MH30F1051, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2, allegedly dashed against him, causing fatal head injuries. A criminal case under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered against the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimants failed to examine any eye witness to prove negligence. The High Court found this approach perverse, noting that the criminal proceedings against the driver clearly established negligence. The court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim on merits without being influenced by the earlier order.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Proof - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants did not examine any eye witness to prove negligence. The High Court held that the Tribunal's approach was perverse as the criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle clearly established negligence. The court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on quantum of compensation. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimants failed to examine eye witnesses to prove negligence.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 6/5/2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani for fresh adjudication on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim on merits without being influenced by the earlier order.
Law Points
- Negligence in motor accident can be established through criminal proceedings and other evidence
- not necessarily by examining eye witnesses
- Tribunal's dismissal of claim for want of eye witness is perverse
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
