Disposed

Smt Ram Niwasi Devi and Others v. Ravi Shankar and Another

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2019CMA/1706/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Full Bench quashed the impugned order declaring the father deceased as the legal heir of the motor vehicle owner. It held that Section 163-A excludes compensation when the deceased is the effective owner, and the claimants, being representatives of the deceased owner, cannot avail protection under that section.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the High Court's order declaring the father deceased as legal heir of the owner of the motor vehicle.

Smt Ram Niwasi Devi and Others Vs Ravi Shankar and Another — Rajasthan HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶3

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ihB] t;iqj

¶4

vk ns ’k

¶5

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k&1706@2013

¶6

1- Jherh jkefuoklh ifRu Lo- mejko mQZ vejko] mez yxHkx 29 o"kZ

¶7

2- ns’kjkt iq= Lo- mejko] mez 8 o"kZ

¶8

3- bUnzjkt mez 7 o"kZ] iq= Lo- mejko vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 tfj;s fof/kd laj{kd ekrk Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh

¶9

leLr tkfr tkV fuoklh ekaxyokM+k dh <k.kh rglhy nwnw ftyk t;iqj

¶10

&&&&[email protected]

¶11

c uk e~

¶12

1- jfo 'kadj iq= pUnz izdk’k] fuoklh vghjksa dk ekSgYyk] cx: rglhy lkaxkusj ftyk t;iqj (iathd`r Lokeh eksVj lkbZfdy la[;k RJ 14 SL 5727)

¶13

2- vkSfj;sUVy ba’;ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM tfj;s eSaustj] {kS=h; dk;kZy; vkuUn Hkou] lalkj pUnz jksM+] t;iqj

¶14

&&&&vukosnd@izR;FkhZx.k

¶15

vkns’k fnukad 09-01-2019

¶16

ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh izdk’k xqIrk

¶17

Jh ;quql [kku] vf/koDrk okLrs vihykFkhZx.k Jh ohjsUnz vxzoky] vf/koDrk okLrs izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 chek dEiuh

¶18

vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaVl~ }kjk bl flfoy fofo/k vihy }kjk U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk okn U;k;kf/kdj.k] lkaHkj ysd ftyk t;iqj (ftls vkxs ‘ v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k ’ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk) }kjk eksVj nq?kZVuk okn la[;k 169@2009 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 31-01-2013 dks pqukSrh nh xbZ gSA mDr fu.kZ; }kjk v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaVl~ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 163&,]

¶19

¶20

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶21

eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e fujLr dh gSA

¶22

Dyse ;kfpdk ds vuqlkj fnukad 06-06-2009 dks lqcg djhc 7-00 cts vihykFkhZ la[;k& 1 dk ifr o vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 dk firk mejko eksVj lkbZfdy la[;k RJ 14 SL 5727ls tc dyokM+k gksrs gq, eqgkuk e.Mh tk jgk Fkk rks dyokM+k ds vkxs usoVk xkWao ds utnhd lst jksM+ 'kghn ds LFkku ds ikl eksVjlkbZfdy ds vkxs vpkud ,d dqRrk vk tkus o mlls cpus ds fy, eksVjlkbZfdy ds czsd ekjus ls eksVjlkbZfdy fLyi gks xbZ ftl dkj.k mlls fxjus ls vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k mldk nsgkUr gks x;kA vihykFkhZx.k@ DysesaVl~ }kjk mejko dh e`R;q ls gqbZ {kfr ds fy;s Dyse ;kfpdk esa of.kZr izfrdj jkf’k fnyk;s tkus dh ekWax dh xbZA

¶23

izR;FkhZ la[;k&1@vukosnd la[;k 1 }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk ds tokc esa oDr nq?kZVuk mejko ds ikl eksVjlkbZfdy pykus dk dksbZ oS/k ,oa izHkkoh vuqKk i= ugha gksuk o ykbZlsal dk nq?kZVuk ds le; dgha xqe gks tkuk dgk x;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k dk mRrjnkf;Ro Hkh gS rks og izR;FkhZ la[;k 2@vukosnd la[;k 2 chek dEiuh dk gSA

¶24

izR;FkhZ la[;k&2@vukosnd la[;k 2 chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc esa nq?kZVuk Lo;a erd }kjk eksVjlkbZfdy ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k ?kfVr gksuk o nq?kZVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls feyhHkxr dj 5 fnu ds foyEc ls ntZ djk;k tkuk dgk x;kA lkFk esa ;g vkifRr Hkh yh xbZ fd erd rrh; i{kdkj ugha gksus ls chek dEiuh dh izfrdj jkf’k dh vnk;xh dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha gS o nq?kZVuk ds le; erd ds ikl eksVjlkbZfdy pykus dk oS/k o izHkkoh ykbZlsal ugha FkkA

¶25

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us izdj.k esa ikWp fook|dksa fojfpr fd,A nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth

¶26

¶27

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶28

lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ rRi’pkr~ v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us fook|d la[;k&4] tks fd fuEu izdkj fojfpr fd;k x;k Fkk%&

¶29

“vk;k foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa

¶30

fo’ks"k fooj.k esa vafdr rF;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS ?”

¶31

dk fofu’p; vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaVl~ ds fo:) djrs gq, Dyse ;kfpdk fujLr dj nhA

¶32

;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk rdZ gS fd v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; fnukad&31-1-2013 i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds foijhr o fof/k ds loZFkk izfrdwy gS pwWafd /kkjk&163&,] eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr izLrqr Dyse ;kfpdk esa nq?kZVuk gksuk o nq?kZVuk esa iz’uxr okgu dh fyIrrk ek= izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko’;d Fkk tks fd vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku~ }kjk izekf.kr fd;s tkus ds ckotwn Dyse ;kfpdk fujLr djus esa v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us fof/kd =qfV dkfjr dh gSA

¶33

nwljh vksj ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 chek dEiuh us v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; fnukad 31-1-2013 dk leFkZu djrs gq, rdZ fn;k fd erd rrh; i{kdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkus ls chek dEiuh dks {kfriwfrZ jkf’k vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha ekuus esa v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us dksbZ xyrh ugha dh gSA rudh la[;k&4 dks vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaVl~ ds fo:) fu.khZr djus ds lEcU/k esa tks fu"d"kZ v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us vfHkfyf[kr fd, gSa muesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gSA

¶34

mHk; i{k ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk }kjk j[ks x, ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k x;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;ku iwoZd voyksdu o ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA

¶35

v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk fook|d la[;k 4 dk fofu’p; vihykFkhZ@nkosnkjku ds fo:) djrs gq, fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn dksbZ O;fDr okgu Lokeh ls okgu dks ekWaxdj ys tkrk gS rks ;g ekuk tkosxk fd okgu dks ekWaxdj ys tkus okyk O;fDr okgu Lokeh dh

¶36

¶37

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶38

fLFkfr esa izfrLFkkfir gks x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa nkosnkjku~ dks ;g LFkkfir djuk vko’;d Fkk fd okgu Lokeh o chek dEiuh ds e/; bl ckr dh lafonk Fkh vkSj izhfe;e vnk fd;k x;k Fkk dh ;fn nq?kZVuk esa okgu Lokeh vFkok pkyd dks dksbZ {kfr dkfjr gksxh rks chek dEiuh mlds fy, nkf;Rok/khu gksxh] rc gh chek dEiuh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k vnk;xh ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxh] ijUrq [email protected] }kjk ;g izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd chek dEiuh o okgu Lokeh ds e/; ,slh dksbZ lafonk FkhA blds vykok v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us e`rd ds ikl iz’uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; eksVjlkbZfdy pykus dk oS/k o izHkkoh ykbZlsal Hkh ugha gksuk izekf.kr ekuk gSA

¶39

;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk vfHkfyf[kr mDr fu"d"kZ lgh gSa vFkok ugha \

¶40

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fuxEek cuke~ ;qukbZVsM bf.M;k ba’;ksjsal dEiuh fy- (2009) 13 SCC 710 e s a bl iz’u dk fd ,slk O;fDr tks okgu Lokeh ls okgu m/kkj ekWax dj ys x;k gks vkSj mlls ml okgu ls nq?kZVuk esa vU; fdlh okgu dh fyIrrk jgs fcuk nq?kZVuk dkfjr gks xbZ gks rks D;k ,slh nq?kZVuk ls gqbZ {kfr ds fy, erd ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k /kkjk 163&,] eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds rgr izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa vFkok ugha? dk tokc ugha (Negative) esa fn;k gSA bl fof/kd n"Vkar ds lqlaxr iSjk la[;k 20 ls 23 fuEu izdkj gSa%&

¶41

“20.It was held in Oriental Insurnace Co. Ltd. case that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a

¶42

¶43

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶44

claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA.

¶45

21.In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.

¶46

22.In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.

¶47

23.When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case ”

¶48

¶49

,dyihB flfoy fofo/k vihy la[;k 1706@2013 Jherh jkefuoklh nsoh oxSjk cuke~ jfo 'kadj o vU;

¶50

fufoZokfnr :i ls nq?kZVuk ds le; iz’uxr eksVjlkbZfdy dk Lokeh izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 FkkA i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gks fd erd mejko izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 jfo 'kadj okgu Lokeh ds fu;kstu esa gks vkSj rrh; i{k gks cfYd ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd erd okgu Lokeh ls iz’uxr eksVjlkbZfdy m/kkj ekWaxdj ys x;k Fkk]a mlds i’pkr~ iz’uxr eksVjlkbZfdy ls nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ Fkh ,oa fufoZokfnr :i ls vU; fdlh okgu dh nq?kZVuk esa fyIrrk ugha FkhA bl izdkj erd okgu Lokeh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fufoZokfnr :i ls chek dEiuh }kjk okgu Lokeh dh fjLd doj ugha dh xbZ Fkh vFkkZr~ bl ckcr~ dksbZ izhfe;e ugha fy;k x;k FkkA blds vykok e`rd ds ikl rRle; eksVj lkbZfdy pykus dk oS/k o izHkkoh vuqKk i= gks] ;g Hkh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA vr% chek dEiuh dks mlds mRrjnkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr djus esa v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV dkfjr ugha dh gSA bl izdkj v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k ds fook|d la[;k 4 ij vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa ftuesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd =qfV ;k izfrdwyrk izdV ugha gksrhA

¶51

mDr foospu ls bl vihy e s a dksbZ lkj ugha gSA vr% ;g vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA

¶52

( U;k- izdk’k xqIrk )

¶53

,elh,l M-42

Smt Ram Niwasi Devi and Others v. Ravi Shankar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ram Niwasi Devi and Others v. Ravi Shankar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Meena S/O Mohan Lal Meena Vs Nathu Lal Mehta S/O Shri Mahadev Prasad Mehta

Smt. Manju Bai W/O Late Shri Harisingh @ Harinarayan Vs Nathu Lal Mehta S/O Shri Mahadev Prasad Mehta

Roshan Lal Vs Parmanand

Smt Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs Narendra Singh and Ors.

Sheopal Vs Hazari Lal and Ors.

Narpat Singh S/O Prithvi Singh Vs Smt. Saroj Devi W/O Subhash Chandra