Depot v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. A.K. Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM Nos.25153 & 25154-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 56 days in refiling and 11 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. FAO No.5126 of 2009 This is owner's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the claimant-respondent No.1 has been granted compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The only ground raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was a case of contributory negligence and therefore, the compensation as granted by the Tribunal could not have been granted. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is without any merit. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: “Special provisions as to payment of compensation FAO No.5126 of 2009(O&M) 2 on structured formula basis-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, ” permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.] “ Thus, from a bare reading of the provisions, it may be noticed that in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is not to be proved. The only requirement under this Section is to prove that the accident in question has occurred due to the use of the aforesaid vehicle. It may be noticed that in the instant case accident with the vehicle in question is not FAO No.5126 of 2009(O&M) 3 denied. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 22, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Dec 2009. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.