(O&M) Anil Kumar Vs K.Ravi & Ors.

This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 30.07.2004 passed in MACT Case No.31 of 2000 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar ( for short “Tribunal” ) vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant under Sections 166 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ ) for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident has been dismissed.

¶13

It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

¶14

The present claim petition was instituted by claimant-Anil Kumar seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident

¶15

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Delhi at about 5.30 Α.Μ. while driving his truck cargo No.HR-14-GA-0144. When he reached near village Tannasnauda on NH8, a truck bearing No.TN-28-V2478 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’ ) came from the opposite side being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1-K. Ravi and hit the truck of the petitioner and caused the accident. Petitioner suffered injuries on both the legs and his left hand was also fractured and multiple injuries all over his body. He received serious injuries due to which he could not inform the police. However, in the meantime, respondent No.1 in collusion with police got registered the FIR against the petitioner bearing No.148 dated 02.05.1999, under Sections 279, 337 IPC at police Station, Dudu. The accident was seen by Dharambir son of Suraj Bhan who was cleaner on the truck and Raj Kumar son of Kali Ram who even donated blood to the petitioner. The petitioner remained admitted in S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur and thereafter at PGIMS, Rohtak and he is still under treatment and unable to walk. He has spent Rs.2,00,000/- on his treatment. His monthly income was Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner has filed this petition against the driver of the offending truck who was arrayed as respondent No.1, owner of the truck who was arrayed as respondent No.2 and United Indian Insurance Company was arrayed as respondent No.3. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

¶17

Respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear in this case and were proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No.3 opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving truck bearing registration No.HR-14-GA-0144 rashly and negligently and he has no right to file the petition. The petition is vague and does not disclose any cause of

¶18

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

The driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and same, if any, was forged and fake. The insured has not informed the insurer about the accident and the insurer is thus not liable to pay the compensation. The income of the petitioner has been claimed on higher side. It has also been alleged that Dharambir and Raj Kumar were eye-witness to the accident and it has been prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

¶20

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

¶21

“1. Whether the injuries were caused to Anil Kumar son of Gordhan in a road accident, which took place on 2.5.1999 at about 5:30 A.M. at National Highway No.8, in the area of Tannasnoda, Rajasthan State, within the jurisdiction of police station, Dudu, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, driver of truck No.TN-28-2478, as alleged? OPP

¶22

2. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid driving licence on the date of accident and if so to what effect? OPR-3

¶23

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an award of compensation and if so for how much amount and from whom? OPP

¶24

4. Relief.”

¶25

To prove his case, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and has also examined Dr. Kumud Sharma as PW2 and in documentary evidence, the petitioner has produced the disability certificate Ex.PA and medicine bills Mark A1 to Mark A54 and closed the evidence. Respondent No.1 examined RW-1 Kishore Singh Tanwar and in documentary evidence has relied upon Ex.R-1 copy of the FIR, certified copy of challan as Ex.R-2, Ex.R-3 application, Ex.R-4 site plan, Ex.R-5 statement of Tara Chand, Ex.R-6 statement of Sampat, Ex.R-7

¶26

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of claimant himself as he drove his truck on the wrong side of the road and dashed into the offending truck bearing No.TN-28-V-2478 which was being driven by respondent No.1 on due left side of the road and issue No.1 was decided against the claimant. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.

¶28

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the Tribunal whereby, it has been held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant himself is highly erroneous and the same is based on conjectures and surmises. Pleadings of the parties and evidence led on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while giving the finding on issue No.1. Infact, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Learned counsel next contended that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well and the claimant was thus not required to prove negligence of any person for causing the accident in which he suffered injuries and amputation of his right leg and compensation under no fault liability under Section 163-A ought to have been awarded to him and he prayed that the impugned Award dated 30.07.2004 be set aside and adequate amount of compensation be awarded to him. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 631 Ram

¶30

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and justified and thus does not call for any interference.

¶32

In order to prove his case, claimant himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed that he was going from Ajmer to Delhi while driving his canter bearing No.HR-14-GA-0144 and when he reached near the village Tan Nasnodha on NH-8 in the area of Police Station, Dudu, offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit his canter, resulting in injuries on his person. He could not report the matter to the police as he was taken to SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, where he remained admitted for 25 days and got treatment as an outdoor patient as well for three months. Thereafter, he remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and his right leg was amputated.

¶33

On the other hand, stand of respondents is that the claimant was driving his canter on the wrong side of the road while going from Ajmer towards Delhi. The offending truck was going from the side of Delhi to Ajmer on its due left side and since the claimant was driving his canter on the wrong side of the road, it resulted in the accident. Even FIR No.148 dated 02.05.1999, Police Station, Dudu Ex.R1 was registered against the claimant and he has been challaned by the police. Respondents have placed on file final report furnished by the police Ex.R2, site plan of the place of accident Ex.R4, to show that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of claimant himself.

¶34

As per contents of FIR Ex.R1, which was registered on the statement

¶35

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

offending truck was going ahead of his crane and at about 05:30 A.M., canter being driven by claimant from opposite side which was being driven on the wrong side of the road and hit the offending truck. The site plan of the place of accident Ex.R4, further shows that the canter was on the wrong side of the road and was coming from the side of Ajmer and going towards Jaipur for going to Delhi whereas truck being driven by respondent No.1 was going from Jaipur towards Ajmer on its due left side. The accident took place at point ‘X’ which is on the left side of the road if one goes from Jaipur towards Ajmer. Even the claimant has been challaned for causing the accident by way of his rash and negligent driving as also admitted by him during his cross-examination and he is facing the trial. Learned Tribunal thus rightly came to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant himself as he drove his canter on the wrong side of the road which is a National Highway and hit the truck being driven by respondent No.1, resulting in injuries to himself. The finding of the Tribunal thus does not suffer from any material illegality or infirmity and same thus does not call for any interference. The finding on issue No.1 is accordingly affirmed.

¶37

The claimant had filed the petition under Section 163-A as well as under Section 166 and since, the accident in question had taken place due to his own rash and negligent driving, he was not entitled to any compensation under Section 166 of the Act. However, he was certainly entitled to compensation under no fault liability under Section 163-A as rash and negligent driving is not required to be proved for seeking compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Now, Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act has been replaced by Section 164

¶38

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

(supra) while deciding an appeal against the dismissal of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act awarded compensation to the claimant under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act by pressing into service the beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament and held as under:-

¶40

"7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a part of Chapter 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 were omitted by Act 32 of 2019. Simultaneously, Chapter 11 was substituted of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶41

8. We are inclined to give the appellants the benefit of the beneficial provisions which have been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in modification of the order of the High Court, we direct that the appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, if the amount of Rs.50,000 which has been awarded by the High Court has already been paid over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5,00,000/- if no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the appellants by 30 November 2022."

¶42

In Ram Murti’s case (supra) , the petition was filed under Section 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had been dismissed and the accident had taken place when Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act had not come into existence and the accident had infact taken place prior to the said amendment. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial provision and applied the beneficial provision of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act retrospectively in cases of no-fault liability under Section 163-A and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants in a death case.

¶43

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

claimant had suffered grievous injuries on account of use of vehicle. The claim petition was initially filed under Section 166 and 163-A of the Act. The amendment in Motor Vehicles Act has came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide which Section 163-A of the Act has been repealed and replaced by Section 164 of the Act. However, before this amendment came into force, the Government by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, vide Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019 had replaced 163-A of the Act with Section 164 and as such, Section 164 had infact come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019. Accordingly, in view law laid down in Ram Murti’s case (supra) , it is held that the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of use of vehicle, resulting in injuries to him and amputation of his leg and issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant.

¶45

Under Issue No.2, it has been held by the Tribunal that Insurance Company has failed to prove that there was violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Ex.R8 and accordingly, finding on issue No.2 is affirmed and it is held that the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant shall be upon respondents No.2 and 3 which shall be joint and several.

¶46

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when Section 164 of the Act came into force i.e. 01.09.2019, till realization, payable by respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally.

¶47

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent/Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble

¶48

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶50

Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶51

07.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE

¶52

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶53

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.09 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Anil Kumar v. K.Ravi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Anil Kumar v. K.Ravi & Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parminder Kaur Vs Buta Singh

Ashok Kumar Vs Naeem Khan

Sachin Trading Company Vs Ram Phal etc.

Naresh Sandhu and Others Vs Varinder Kaur Mann and Others

Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Vs Varinder Kaur Mann and Others

Sonu Mann Vs Fatehjang Singh Chahal and Others