Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CHAPTER: III
Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
99
CHAPTER: III
Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
A. Introduction
A new forum, i.e. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which substitutes Civil
Court, has been created by the Motor Vehicles Act, for cheaper and speedier
remedy to the victims of accident of motor vehicles. Prior to the Motor Vehicles
Act, a suit for damages had to be filed with civil court, on payment of ad
valorem court fee. But, under the provisions of this Act, an application claiming
compensation can be made to the Claims Tribunal without payment of ad
valorem fee1. New provisions in Motor Vehicles Act, do not create any new
liability, and the liability is still based on law of tort and enactments like the
Fatal Accidents Act. The position on this point was critically explained in
Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Kamal Kamini2:
The object of this group of sections 110 to 110F of the (1939) Act is to supply a
cheap and expeditious mode of enforcing liability arising out of claim for
compensation in respect of accident involving the death, or bodily injury to,
persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damage to any property of a
third party so arising, or both as referred to in Section 110. Prior to the
constitution of the Tribunal, compensation could be claimed by institution of
suits for damages only through the medium of the Civil Court on payment of ad
valorem court fee. This group of sections furnishes a self-contained Code that
Swaranlata v. N.T.I. Pvt. Ltd., A I R 1974 (Gauhati), 31 ; see also R.K.Bangia, Law of Torts
including Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (1997) p.469
2
Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Kamal Kamini, A. I . R. 1973 (Orissa) 33
1
100
101
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 163-A4.
A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State
Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more
members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof5.
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims
Tribunal unless he is or has been a Judge of a High Court, or is or has been a
District Judge or is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a
District Judge6.
Where two or more Claims Tribunal are constituted for any area, the State
Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of
business among them7.
102
Where any claims Tribunal has been constituted for any areas, 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 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.
In Sushma Mehta v. Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd9 it was
held by the court that no tribunal can be constituted unless there has been
firstly, a notification of the State Government and Secondly, such notification
has been published in the official gazette of the state.
Sushma Mehta v. Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd, AIR 1964 (MP) 133 (DB)
Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 (Pat.) 49
10
103
New Asiatic Transport (P) Co. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal, (1966) 68 Punj. LR (Del.) 51.
Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 ACJ 238 (Pat.) FB
13
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Molia Devi, 1969 ACJ 164 (MP) DB
12
104
(b)
(c)
Dr. R.G.Chaturvedi, Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation (2010) p.495
K.P.Verma v. State of Bihar, 1990 ACJ 32 (Pat.) DB.
105
favour of a class of District Judges and then, whoever, occupies the office
of the District Judge shall function also as Claims Tribunal16.
(d)
Supra n. 14 p.496
Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran, 1981 ACJ 50 (Mad.)
18
Satyabadi Nayak v. Dameli Khilla, 1991 ACJ 211 (Guj.) DB
17
106
In computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the
territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any
judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court
or has held the office as a Member of a Tribunal or any post, under the Union
or a state, requiring special knowledge of law. Similarly, in computing the
period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there
shall be included any period during which the person has held judicial office
of a member of a tribunal or any post under the Union or a State, requiring
special knowledge of law after he became an advocate.
Dr. R.G.Chaturvedi, Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation (2010) p.497, 498
Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services, 2009 (3) ACC 300 (Bom)
FB
19
20
107
court, but it has all the trapping of court since it passes an award which has
all the ingredients of a judgement as known under civil jurisprudence.
In the matter of Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyamsunder Jhunjhuinwal21
the distinction between courts and tribunal was pointed out by the Supreme
Court of India as follows:
The word court is not defined in the Companies Act, 1956. It is not defined
in the Civil Procedure Code. The definition in the Indian Evidence Act is not
exhaustive, and is for the purpose of that Act. In the New English
Dictionary22 the meaning is given is: an assembly of judges or other persons
legally appointed and acting as a tribunal to hear and determine any cause,
civil, ecclesiastical, military or naval.
The Claims Tribunal shall, for the purposes of holding any determination
under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
21
22
108
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Ganga Devi, 2006 ACJ 2857 (Jhar.) DB
109
The reasoning conceding to the power of the High Court to entertain such a
revision seems to gravitate upon one or the other of the propositions not
appealing to the reason. The claims tribunal is said to have trapping of civil
court, but merely because some authority has been clothed with the trappings
of a court, it cannot logically follow that it is liable to be treated as civil court
for all intents and purposes. If the tribunal is or can be considered to be a
civil court, there is no use of employing the additive which inheres the
expression trappings of court. The use of this expression is itself indicative
that the possession of some trappings of a court cannot identify an authority
with a de facto civil court24.
Ibid.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166(1)
110
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 application26.
Every application under sub - section (1) of section 166 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 prescribed27.
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 applicant28.
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
Act29.
The state government may under rules prescribes the form of application for
compensation and sub section 2 of section 166 confers jurisdiction to entertain
and adjudicate on such application upon following three different tribunal:
1. The Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the accident has
occurred, or:
2. The Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant
resides or carries on business, or
26
111
30
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indu Sharma, 2000 ACJ 808 (P&H)
112
31
32
113
People, who have been injured in accidents on the road, can themselves
file for compensation or route the claims though their advocates.
2.
But accident victims, who are below 18 years of age, cannot file for
compensation themselves; they have to go through their advocates.
3.
Legal heirs of people who have died in accidents can also claim
compensation; alternatively, they can route their claims through their
advocates.
114
35
Ibid.
115
36
37
Ibid.
Sanno Devi v. Balram, 2007, ACJ 1881 (MP) DB
116
I. Pecuniary Jurisdiction
The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal has a double implication
i.e. compensation in case of death or bodily injury and in respect of damage
caused to any property. Section 165 of the Act empowers the tribunal to
award compensation not only for death and bodily injury but also for damage
to property. As regards the former, there are three different provisions in the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, namely:
1. Compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault, as provided in
section 140 of the Act.
2. Compensation on structured formula basis, under section 163-A of the
Act, and
3. Compensation which appears to the Claims Tribunal to be just, under
section 168 of the Act.
In the category of claims under 1. Above, i.e. compensation on principle of
no fault, compensation can be awarded either in cases of death or in cases of
permanent disablement of any person, and in either case, the fixed and
different amounts have been fixed respectively for death and permanent
disablement. The relevant provisions are sub-sections (1) and (2) of section
14038.
Dr. R.G.Chaturvedi, Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation (2010) p.537.
117
of jurisdiction of the civil court cannot thus, readily inferred, and the
Supreme Court in a classic decision in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya
Pradesh39 has covered out as many as seven exceptions to a statutory bar
created on jurisdiction of the civil court, seven exceptions are as under:
1. Where the statute gives finality to the order of the special tribunal, the
civil courts jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such
provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of
the particular Act have been complied with or the statutory tribunal has
not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure.
2. Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of the courts, an examination
of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency
of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the
jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion, the
examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find
out the intendment become necessary and the result of the inquiry may be
decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary to see if the statute creates a
special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right
or liability and further lays down that all questions provides the said right
and liability shall be determined by the tribunal so constituted, and
whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are
prescribed by the said statute or not.
3. Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vies cannot be
brought before tribunal constituted under that Act. Even the High Court
39
118
119
IV.
Section 175 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts where any Claims Tribunal
has been constituted.
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 Court42.
In
Vatticherukuru
Village
Panchayat
v.
Nori
Venkataraman
Deehsithulu43it was held by the apex court that the procedure before the
tribunal is simple and not hidebound by intricate procedure of pleadings and
40
120
121
was thrown in the front and hit against the iron side bar, sustaining a serious
head injury. Subsequently he succumbed to the injury.
The Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu on behalf of the legal
representative of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the National
Commission under the 1986 Act claiming compensation. The appellant
contested the claim contending that the claimant i.e. the Council, had no
locus standi to maintain the action and in any case the National Commission
had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition since exclusive jurisdiction was
conferred by the 1988 Act on the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder.
The National Commission contended the appellant, side stepped the question
regarding jurisdiction and without answering the same awarded Rs. 5.10 Lacs
by way of compensation with interest at 18% per annum with costs of Rs.
10,000/-. An appeal against the judgement was preferred to the Supreme
Court. The question that arose for consideration was whether the National
Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and award
compensation in respect of an accident involving death of the deceased
caused by the use of Motor Vehicle.
The Supreme Court without going in to depth of awarding of compensation
by National Commission to the victim, only answer the question of law as to
whether National Commission can entertain such case held that National
Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever and was entirely wrong in
exercising jurisdiction and awarding compensation. However, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the judgment pronounced by National
Commission was reversed and appellant were not entitled to recover the
compensation money already paid to the victim under the orders of National
Commission.
122
Hence, claims for compensation arising out of use of motor vehicles cannot
be adjudicated by any of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums
contemplated and created under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint in the case of motor accident cannot be said to be in relation to
any service hired or availed of by the consumer because the injury sustained
by the consumer has nothing to do with the service provided or availed of by
him if the injury is the direct result of the accident.
VI.
123
It was held that once it is established that the accident arose out of use of
motor vehicle, the tribunals jurisdiction cannot be said to be ousted on a
finding that it was negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not negligence
of the motor driver.
124
IX.
The tribunal has trapping of civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on
oath and of enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the discovery
and production of documents and material objects and for such other
52
125
55
56
126
The court was of the view that in such matter, even notice to the opposite
party is unnecessary, since the other side can challenge the same later on with
necessary, cogent and justifiable evidence57.
XI.
57
Ibid.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Chandra Prava Barman, 2001(2) TAC 698 (Guj.) DB.
59
Siddarmappa Patil v. President, Bhartiya Vidya Vardhaka Sangha,1997 ACJ 713 (Karn.).
58
127
XII. Claimant
can
Withdraw
Applications
and
file
it
at
Appropriate Place
Where the claim was filed in a tribunal having Jurisdiction over the area in
which the accident occurred or defendant resides, but the claimant having
become totally crippled and unable to prosecute his claim there, he may be
allowed to withdraw his claim and file it afresh at a place where he usually
resides.
60
61
128
62
129
E.
Section 167 of the Act lays down that when claim arises under this Act and
under the compensation only under either of these Acts and not under both the
Act.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923
where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for
compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act,
1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the
provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but
not under both65.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mehebubanbibi66the decision in the case
may be taken as an exception to the provision of section 167, wherein the facts
(at the cost of repetition) were that the deceased had been deputed by his
employer to carry a damaged transformer in a tractor, had fallen into a ditch. The
deceased, pressed under the damaged transformer in the ditch succumbed to his
injuries in the hospital. Death of the deceased had arisen out of and in the course
of employment since the deceased was employee of the electricity board and
died while on duty. Since the accident had occurred because of negligence of the
driver of the tractor, which belonged to a different person, it was held by the
Division Bench that the claimants, in the peculiar circumstance of the case, were
entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under
the Workmens Compensation Act.
65
66
130
F.
Section 168 of the Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall deliver the copies
of the award to the parties within fifteen days of the award and that the person
against whom the award is made shall deposit the amount awarded within thirty
days of announcement of the award.
On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and
after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard,
hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and,
subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person
or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the
Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or
owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be67.
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under
section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such
claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for
compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X68.
The Claims tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties
concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the
date of the award69.
67
131
When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any
amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing
the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such
manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct70.
In Ranu Bala Paul v. Bani Chakraborty71it was held that an award under
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be equated either with a civil or a criminal
case, and the tribunal while awarding compensation is not expected to go into
niceties or technicalities but must adopt a broad and a liberal approach.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Lakshmi72it was held that the tribunal
is expected to award a compensation which appears to be just, it follows that in
deserving cases, the tribunal may not be bound by the figure stated in the claim
petition and can award an amount even more that what has been claimed.
G.
Section 169 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the Claims
Tribunal in setting claims compensation and the powers of the Claims tribunal.
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 procedures as it
thinks fit73.
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
70
132
deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197374.
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 inquiry75.
The procedure to be followed at the Claims Tribunal is as under:
133
77
Ibid.
United India Insurance Co. v. Shaik Saibaqtualla, 1992 ACJ 858 (AP) DB
79
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Chintnala@ Anagaiah Narasimha, 2002 ACJ 1524 (AP)
DB
80
Dayanand v. Baijnath, 1991 ACJ 975 (Raj.)
81
Allanoor v. Dilip Singh 1998 ACJ 136 (Raj.)
78
134
It was further held that summons on owner and driver of vehicle can be
served on counsel representing driver and owner in criminal court for
purpose of bail82.
82
Ibid.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar, 2007 ACJ 222 (P&H).
84
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bimla, 2001 ACJ 388 (P&H).
85
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Hemavati, 2001 ACJ 749 (Cal.) DB
83
135
136
IX.
89
137
Remedy against order of tribunal refusing to set aside ex-parte award lies in
petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. A miscellaneous appeal
under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable nor can
such appeal be treated as petition under article 227 of the Constitution,
though such petition can be filed afresh93.
An application for setting aside ex parte award was dismissed as not pressed.
It was held that point of ex parte award cannot be reopened or reagitated in
appeal, since fact of application to set aside ex parte award being dismissed
as not pressed amounts to acceptance that defendant was properly declared ex
parte94.
Where a claim petition was dismissed on the day fixed for evidence but
absence of claimant was not deliberate and counsel of claimant had gone out
of town, it was held that a party cannot be penalized for mistake or
negligence of counsel95.
93
138
the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all
or any of them, as the case may be96.
It is duty of tribunal to record findings on all issues, even if on the finding of
one or other of the issues, it was possible to decide the matter one way or the
other. Under Order 20, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is mandatory
that the court shall state its finding or decision, with the reason therefore,
upon each separate issue and all the distinct issues have to be answered
separately. The exceptional situations are only those provided under Order
14, Rule 2(2), where an issue relating to the jurisdiction or a bar to a suit/
proceedings is required by any law for the time being in force to be decided
as a preliminary issue, where evidence is recorded on all the issues, when
there is scope of appeal, under Section 173 of the Act, to avoid delay and
protraction of litigation, that tribunal/ court should, when dealing with matter
dispose of all issues and not merely to rest its decision on one or more issues
by leaving unanswered the remaining issues97.
139
30 days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal deposit
the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
It may also be noted here that ordinarily while awarding compensation, the
provisions contained in the second schedule may be taken as a guide
including the multiplier, but they may arise some cases, as one in hand,
which may fall in the category having special feature or facts calling for
deviation from the multiplier usually applicable98.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, AIR 2002 SC 2616
Mt. Prag Kaur v. Devi Dutt, 1998(1) ACC 313 (P&H).
100
U.P.State Road Transport Corportaion v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, AIR 2006 NOC 198
99
140
under the award as arrears of land revenue. The tribunal posses inherent
jurisdiction to enforce its own award in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to execution of orders and decrees
passed by a civil court. When tribunal possesses such inherent jurisdiction,
the claimant cannot be asked to follow another procedure and the tribunal is
to execute the award under Order 21, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code101.
H. Assessment of Claim
The assessment of compensation, however, be made good but cannot be said to
be fool proof. In every such assessment certain assumptions are to be made and
there is all possibility of variance from Judge to Judge in applying the various
principles enunciated by the Courts from time to time. Lord Viscount Simon has
evolved a method of assessment known as "Nance's method" more popularly as
"discounting method". Another popular method, which is known as Davis
Method was evolved by Lord Wright.
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a matter evolved a formula. Yearly
Income Yearly expenditure on Deceased gives the sum expended on legal
representatives. If this amount is capitalized subject to certain deductions,
pecuniary loss to the family can be assessed. While improving the above formula
Supreme Court in C.K.Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair102 case has
stated that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life
and measure of damages cannot be arrived at by a mathematical calculation but
the amount recoverable depends upon life expectancy of legal representative
beneficiaries. In the same period Lord Diploc has evolved Interest Capitalization
method by calculating net pecuniary loss on annual basis and multiplied with
number of years purchase. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with the
101
102
141
103
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, AIR, 1994SC
1631.
104
Ibid.
142
In view of the above case laws, one can say that the assessment of compensation
is to be guided by way of applying precedents on the facts and circumstances of
a particular case. It should not be misunderstood that an injured or legal
representatives of the deceased should be given exorbitant claim, but the law
restrict them to be "just compensation" so as to save the injured or legal
representatives of deceased from possible pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses
guided by the above judgments.
143
the Claims Tribunal gets satisfied that the claimant and the owner of the vehicle
are in collusion or where the owner or driver has not contested the claim and as
regards the former, it is unusual for the tribunal to smell any such collusion and
it is only the insurer who has to make such application and satisfy the tribunal by
adducing evidence that there has been a collusion between the claimant and the
insured owner of the vehicle. On the tribunal being satisfied, it shall allow the
insurer to take over the entire defence, raise all such pleas as be available to the
owner- insured, and such pleas shall, then be in addition to the statutory defences
available to or already taken by the insurer under section 149 (2).
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyami107 it was held that unless
tribunal has permitted the insurer to contest the claim on all or any other grounds
that are available to persons against whom the claim had been made, application
under section 170 is not maintainable.
107
108
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyami, 2001 (2) AJR 523
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 171
144
109
145
subsequent suit for damages for compensation in respect of such misrepresentation, claim or defence112.
146
it was open to the insurer to have moved an application before the tribunal under
section 151, 152 or 153 of the Civil Procedure Code for recalling the award. It
was observed that as and when such application be filed, the same shall be
considered and disposed of by the tribunal.
117
147
121
148
122
149
123
150
126
Bani Ram Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd , 2008 ACJ 538
151
127
152
In regard to Accident
In regard to Accident
Years)
prior to 14.11.1994
after 14.11.1994
18 to 22
16
18
23 to 27
15
17
28 to 32
14
16
33 to 37
13
15
38 to 42
12
14
43 to 47
11
13
48 to 52
10
12
53 to 57
11
58 to 62
10
63 to 67
68 to 72
73 to 77
130
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanlaxmiben Satishbhai Bhagat, 2008 ACJ 966 (Guj.) DB
153
131
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhavani Nanji Pachanbhai Patel, 2007 ACJ 2067
Kamla Devi v. Ram Kishan, 2009 (1) ACC 920
133
Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer, 2007 ACJ 678
134
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indu Saraswat, 2009 ACJ 2413 (Raj.).
132
154
T. Review
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or
more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (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.
A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State
Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more
members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. A person
shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless
he is or has been a Judge of a High Court, or is or has been a District Judge or is
qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge.
Claims Tribunal set up under this Act are deemed Civil Courts. In Mohd.
Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services,135it was
held that technically and grammatically speaking, tribunal may not be a civil
court, but it has all the trappings of court since it passes an award which has all
the ingredients of a judgement as known under civil jurisprudence.
An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the person who has
sustained the injury or by the owner of the property or where death has resulted
from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by
135
Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services, 2009 (3) ACC 300 (Bom)
FB
155
any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased, as the case may be136.
In Sanno Devi v. Balram,137 it was held that the jurisdiction of a tribunal
depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of motor vehicle
and once it has been established, tribunals jurisdiction cannot be held ousted on
findings that it is negligence of other joint tortfeasor and not of the motor vehicle
in question.
The claimant can file an application within the jurisdiction of claims tribunal (1)
where the accident occurred, or (2) before the tribunal within local limits of
whose jurisdiction, claimant resides or carries on his business, or (3) within local
limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant resides or carries on his business. In
Kusum Devi v. Dungaram,138it was held that in view of the word or which
separates three clauses, the claimant can choose either of the three options and as
per legislative intent, there are three options implied, whereby he has been given
a right to pick one of three places for exercising his option.
Section 168 of the Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall deliver the copies
of the award to the parties within fifteen days of the award and that the person
against whom the award is made shall deposit the amount awarded within thirty
days of announcement of the award.
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
compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and
for such other purposes as may be prescribed. Further, the Claims Tribunal shall
136
156
be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter
XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973139.
Section 173 makes provision for appeal to High Court by the aggrieved against
the orders of Claims Tribunal and where the person aggrieved is the person who
has to pay the compensation such person shall deposit 50 percent of the amount
awarded or as directed by the High Court.
Section 176 of the Act confers upon the State Government power to make rules
for carrying into effect the various provisions including Sections 165 to 173.
139