On account of rapid development of road transport and increase in number of Motor Vehicles on road the accidents by Motor Vehicles have been increased enormously. About 450,000 accidents take place in India annually, of which 150,000 people die. “India has the highest number of casualties in road accidents,” said the report. “There are 53 road accidents in the country every hour and one death every four minutes.”
In 1988 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was passed by the parliament of India. This act is responsible for covering all the aspects that are related to road transport vehicles. Furthermore, this act provided licensing to the conductors and the drivers as well as registration of motor vehicles. Also, traffic regulations, the provision on controlling the permit, penalties, and liabilities were covered under the Motor Vehicle Act ,1988.
The Motor Vehicle Act 1988
The major objective of this act was to concentrate on the innocent people who are traveling on the road and can get affected by the drivers. The drivers of this motor vehicle were not held accountable for until this act. Thus, under the motor vehicle act, there was a provision for compensation for these helpless people on the road.
The Act, 1988 further amended and No-Fault Compensation has been inserted in the Act, even though there is no fault on behalf of drivers of the vehicle.
140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.—
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of[twenty-five thousand rupees].
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A.
146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.—
(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter:
Explanation.—A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely:—
(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) any local authority;
(c) any State transport undertaking:
Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate Government” means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and—
(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or that State Government;
(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that Government which has control over that undertaking or authority.
165. Claims Tribunals.—
(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under section 140 [and section 163A].
Section 175 Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts.—Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.
The claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injuries to persons arising out of use of Motor Vehicles as well as insurance of the Motor Vehicles against third party risk and liability of the insurer are contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.
The State Government has been empowered to constitute one o more Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunals by notification in Official Gazette.
Section 166 of the Act,1988 provides for application for compensation before the MACT and provisions of section 168 are related to awards of compensation by the MACT.
The provisions of Section 175 -bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated by the MACT for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be take by or before the MACT in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.
UNION OF INDIA vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.(supra) -applications for compensation had been filed either by the injured passenger or the defendant of the deceased passengers travelling in the Motor Vehicle both against the insurer as well as the Railway Administration and one of the contentions which had been raised before the Apex Court by Railway Administration was whether a claim for compensation would at all be maintainable before the MACT against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors and if the same has arose out of use of Motor Vehicle.
On consideration of different provisions of the MVA,1988 this Court ultimately came to hold that “ We hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable before the MACT against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors , amd if arising out of use of Motor Vehicle. We hold that MACT and the High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against Railways if its negligence in relation to same accident was also proved.
The Apex Court also come to hold that the views expressed by Guwahati, Orissa and Madras High courts to the effect that not award can be passed against others except the owner/driver or insurer of the Motor Vehicle are not correct , and on the other hand the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana , Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts to the effect that the claim lies before MACT even against another joint tortfeasors connected with the same accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged.”
IT MEANS THAT: – a claim for compensation can be filed against the owner/driver /insurance company and the other joint tortfeasors connected with with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. The MACT has jurisdiction to entertain application for compensation in Motor Accident cases both by the injured person or legal representative of deceased person of an Motor Vehicle Accident case.
The Jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunals constituted under MVA,1988 is the accident arising out of Motor Vehicle , and therefore if there has been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and Railway train then all those persons injured or died could make an application for compensation before MACT not only against the owner/driver but also against the Railway Authorities.
Please Note That: – once jurisdiction is invoked and is exercise the said jurisdiction cannot be divested of on any subsequent finding about the b negligence of the tortfeasers concerned. It would be immaterial if the finding is arrived at that it is only other joint tortfeaser who was negligent in causing the accident ad not the driver of the Motor Vehicle.
The Apex Court in above case further held that “ in our considered opinion that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle depends essentially on the fact that whether there had been any use of Motor Vehicle and once that is established the Tribunals’ Jurisdiction cannot be held to be outside on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the Motor Vehicle in question.”
The Apex Court in its decision held that – “ it is ultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agencies, then on that finding , the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the MVA,1988 because the case would then become one of exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the Motor Vehicle , the claim would not be maintainable before the MACT is not correct in law and to that extent the aforesaid decision must be held to have not been correctly decided.”
Please Note That- The MVA ,1988 is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider than a Civil Court. A claimant has a vide option. The residence of claimant also determines the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, however ,depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. [Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2009(2) ALL MR 475].
Please Note That- no doubt Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under provisions of Section 166(2) as follows ;
166. Application for compensation—
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made—
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.
169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.—
(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.
From above provisions of Section 169 provides that the Tribunal, subject to any rule may follow Summary procedures and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code under the Act has limited application but in terms of the rules “ Save and Except” any specific provisions made in that behalf , the provisions of Civil Procedure Code will apply.
CONCLUSION: from above discussion, we conclude that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal established by the State Government on the basis of power provided under provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has exclusive power to decide cases of compensation arise due to involvement of a Motor Vehicle in an accident. It is to be noted that the application must be filed by injured person or his/her legal representatives and against the driver/owner /insurance company or other joint tortfeasors or persons or agencies ,who are alleged to be party in an act of negligence. The MACT has jurisdiction to award compensation against any o person or agency involved in the act of negligence, which causes Motor Accident. No Civil Court is allowed to interfere in the award passed or any action taken or to be taken by the Tribunal , under its jurisdiction.
*****
DISCLAIMER: The article produced here is only for knowledge and information of readers. The author has taken all steps to share true and verified views on the subject matter. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and same should not be considered as professional advice. In case of necessity do consult with insurance professional.
Author Bio
