S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shivkumar Binjhwar

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2024:CGHC:33018

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 145 of 2023

¶7

1 - S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Raipur, 4th Floor, Pujari Chamber, Dhamtari Road, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Shivkumar Binjhwar S/o Jagat Ram Binjhwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kerakachhar, Chowki Pantora, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Nilkamal Yadav S/o Chhatram Aged About 22 Years R/o Mudhali, Chowki Hardibazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Bolero No. Cg 12 Bf 5111)

¶12

3 - Ramsevak S/o Tularam Aged About 45 Years R/o Mudhali, Chowki Hardibazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Bolero No. Cg 12 Bf 5111)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Applicant	: Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.1	: Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	: Shri Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

29.08.2024

¶17

1. The facts of the present case are that non-applicant No.1/Shivkumar Binjhwar met with an accident on 20.07.2022 and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. As per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, his disability is more

¶18

2

¶19

than 54%. The matter was reported to the Police Station Baloda on 23.07.2022 immediately after three days of the incident. The claimant/injured filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act after a lapse of 9 months and 2 days on 24.04.2023. Learned Tribunal issued notice to the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company appeared before the learned Tribunal and an application for rejection of the claim was moved on the ground that the claim case was not filed within a period of six months of the accident, therefore, the claim case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed according to provisions of Rule 224 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules.

¶20

1. Reply was not filed to the application moved by the Insurance Company and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 rejected the application on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties. It is further observed that the claim case under Rule 224 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 can be dismissed after recording the evidence if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to continue with the claim case. The Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶21

1. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/Insurance Company would argue that according to the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no application for compensation will be entertained unless the same is made within 6 months of the

¶22

3

¶23

occurrence of the accident. He would further submit that the amendment came into force from 01.04.2022 and the accident took place on 20.07.2022. He would also submit that undisputedly the claim case was filed on 24.04.2023, after the expiry of six months, therefore, it was not maintainable. He further argued that the Tribunal had no authority of law to entertain such a claim case when there is no provision to condone the delay. He also argued that though an FIR was lodged by the injured according to the provisions of Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no Accident Information Report (AIR) was placed before the Tribunal. He stated that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the Insurance Company.

¶24

1. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2023) 4 SCC 381 .

¶25

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for nonapplicant No.1 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the Claims Tribunal has to treat the report of an accident forwarded to it under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act as an application for compensation according to provisions of Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the matter was reported to the police authorities on 23.07.2022 and the police officers of Police Station Baloda were under obligation to inform the concerned

¶26

4

¶27

Claims Tribunal with regard to the accident along with the relevant documents within a period of three months according to the provisions of Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also argued that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and such benefit cannot be defeated on technical grounds. He further contended that if any person suffers an accident and remains in hospital for more than six months, in such a situation, his claim case filed after six months cannot be dismissed according to the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also contended that within time, information was given to the police station but there was a delay in filing the claim case before the Claims Tribunal and the delay was caused on account of the ill-health of the claimant as he had suffered grievous injuries and his disability was more than 54% as per certificate given by the Medical Board. He stated that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the application moved by the Insurance Company.

¶28

1. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 has also placed reliance on the matter of Gohar Mohammed (supra) and the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in the matter of Malaravan vs. Praveen Travels Private Limited and Ors. , C.R.P. No.2558 of 2023 .

¶29

1. Learned counsel for the State would support the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

1. I have heard counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶31

5

¶32

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:-

¶33

“ 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—

¶34

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

¶35

(b) by the owner of the property; or

¶36

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

¶37

(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:

¶38

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.

¶39

Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.

¶40

(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:

¶41

[* * * * *]

¶42

[(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.]

¶43

[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under section 159 as an application for compensation under this Act.]

¶44

[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]

¶45

6

¶46

10) According to the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act, 1988, the application for the grant of compensation cannot be entertained unless the same is filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident. Sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 says that the Claims Tribunal will treat any report of accident forwarded to it under Section 159 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as an application for compensation.

¶47

11) Section 159 of the M.V. Act, 1988 deals with information to be given regarding accidents. This section says that the police officer shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of the claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing such particulars and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed. According to provisions of this section, the police officer has to investigate, prepare an accident information report and thereafter, submit it to the Claims Tribunal. If such information is placed before the Claims Tribunal, it shall be treated as an application for compensation according to the provisions of Section 166(4) of the M.V. Act, 1988.

¶48

12) In the present case, the injured met with an accident on 20.07.2022 and the report was lodged at Police Station Baloda on 23.07.2022 but the police authority failed to intimate the concerned Claims Tribunal according to Section 159 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The claimant filed a claim case on 24.04.2013 and in that matter, an application for dismissal of the claim case was

¶49

7

¶50

moved by the Insurance Company, which was rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶51

13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed (supra) from paragraphs 41 to 44 has held that the Investigating Officer has to compile all the relevant documents and material in the form of a detailed accident report in Form−VII accompanying site plan Form−VIII, mechanical inspection report Form−IX, verification report Form−X and the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. It is further held that the extension of the time limit to file an Interim Accident Report (IAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is permissible where the Investigating Officer approaches the Claims Tribunal in cases where the parties reside outside the jurisdiction or the driver’s licence is issued outside the jurisdiction or where the victim has suffered grievous injuries and is undergoing continuous treatment. It is further held that the Investigating Officer has to complete the investigation within a period of 60 days and he has to make available the entire information before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 90 days without delay. It reads thus:-

¶52

“41. The Investigating Officer shall within 90 days compile all relevant documents and material in the form of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) in Form−VII accompanying site plan Form−VIII, mechanical inspection report Form−IX, verification report Form−X and the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) It would be the duty of the registering authority to verify the registration certificate, driving licence, fitness and permit in respect of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident and the same is required to be submitted within 15 days to the Investigating Officer to complete the IAR and DAR. The extension of time limit to

¶53

8

¶54

file IAR and DAR is only permissible where the Investigating Officer approaches the Claims Tribunal in cases where parties reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the driver’s licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the Court or where the victim(s) have suffered grievous injuries and are undergoing continuous treatment.

¶55

42. Thus, the Investigating Officer shall furnish FAR within 48 hours, IAR within 50 days, complete the investigation within 60 days and file DAR within 90 days. Copy of DAR shall be furnished to the victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s) of the vehicle(s), the insurance company involved and the State Legal Services Authority including the Nodal Officer of the insurance company and the General Insurance Council.

¶56

43. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to carry out the purpose of the provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of the M.V. Amendment Act, the Officer In−charge of the police station and the registering authority are required to act upon in a manner as prescribed in the Rules within the period as specified, thereby on receiving the information of accident, the complete information regarding such accident is to be made available before the Claims Tribunal within the time limit without delay. As per Rules, the failure to perform the duties by the police officer may entail severe consequences as envisaged under the provisions of the State Police Act.

¶57

44. Thus, legislative intent is clear that on reporting a road accident the Investigation Officer must complete all his action within time frame and shall act as facilitator to the victim(s)/claimant(s), insurance company by furnishing all details in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may get damages/compensation without delay.”

¶58

14) Learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has placed reliance

¶59

on paragraph 51 of the same judgment wherein it is held that the first recourse available to the claimant is to claim compensation as per provisions of Section 164 of the M.V. Act, 1988; the second recourse is to file a claim case under Section 166(2) of the M.V.

¶60

9

¶61

Act, 1988 which must be filed within six months from the date of accident and the third recourse available to the claimant would be the reports submitted by the police or Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal if the claimant fails to take recourse either under Section 164 or 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. Para 51 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶62

“51. On perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that as a first recourse by not pleading or establishing proof of wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or driver or of the vehicle, the compensation can be claimed under Section 164, but such compensation is of limited amount to the tune, as specified in case of death or grievous injury. The second recourse available to the claimant(s) is to apply by proving wrongful act and neglect of the owner(s) or the driver(s) before the Claims Tribunal by opting the jurisdiction at a place specified under Section 166(2) but such claim must be filed within six months from the date of accident and be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The third recourse has been prescribed by introducing Section 149 of M.V. Amendment Act by which in case the claimant(s) have failed to take recourse either under Section 164 or Section 166 within the prescribed period of limitation, the report submitted by the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred, may be treated as claim application under Section 166(4) and would not debar the claimant(s) to seek compensation if he/they could not file the application under Section 166(1) of the Act.”

¶63

15) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 51 has held that if the claimant fails to move any application under Sections 164 or 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 then the report submitted by the Investigating Officer according to the provisions of Section 159 of the M.V. Act, 1988 would be treated as an application for compensation and there would be no need to move a separate application.

¶64

16) In paragraph 62 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the claimant has not taken recourse to Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 within a time limit of six months, such miscellaneous application may be treated as an application

¶65

10

¶66

under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Amendment Act, meaning thereby, if a claimant who has lodged an FIR at the concerned police station within a period of six months of the accident but he fails to move an application under Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act before the concerned Tribunal, his application moved under Section 166(2) may be treated as an application under Section 166(4) of the M.V. Act and it cannot be dismissed on account of the provisions of Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act but if no such report is lodged at the police station, the provisions of Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act can be exercised by the Learned Tribunal.

¶67

17) The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent provisions to extend the benefit of compensation to the injured or the family members of the deceased person and on technical grounds, the benefit of such provision cannot be curtailed.

¶68

18) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Sections 159, 166(3) and 166(4) of the M.V. Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal does not require interference by this Court. Accordingly, this civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶71

Nimmi

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shivkumar Binjhwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shivkumar Binjhwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Janki Bai And Anr. Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation, Raipur

Smt. Sunita Dhariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Shrivastava (Died) Through LRs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh