Allowed

Jangir Singh v. R.S.R.T.C.and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2019CMA/1714/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an appeal holding that liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lies with the vehicle owner, not the driver. The court set aside an earlier award imposing liability on the driver and remanded the matter to the MACT.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.10.2007 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; the owner is directed to release the interim no-fault award within two months.

Jangir Singh Vs R.S.R.T.C.and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1714/2008

Jangir Singh

----Appellant

Versus

R.S.R.T.C. & Ors.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

05/08/2019

¶12

The short point involved in the appeal is as to whether driver of vehicle can be imposed with liability under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ?

¶13

For the purpose, it would be appropriate to quote Section 140 of M.V. Act.

¶14

“ Section 140 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

¶15

140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.—

¶16

(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

¶17

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees]. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CMA-1714/2008]

¶20

(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. 3[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A.”

¶21

In the present case, from a bare perusal of aforesaid Section, it is apparent that owner is required to pay in terms of Section 140. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.10.2007 imposes liability on driver of the bus, which caused accident.

¶22

This Court finds that there is no discussion of provision of Section 140 of M.V. Act at all. No fault liability has been fixed on the driver without giving reasons.

¶23

Having heard both the counsels and taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, as above, this appeal on the short point is liable to be allowed. The order dated 25.10.2007 is set aside. It is noticed that record was called and is attached to this file. The same is directed to be returned to concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ Court), Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar, who shall now decide the main claim expeditiously.

¶24

It is made clear that owner shall release the interim no fault award in favour of the claimants within a period of two months.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

74-Sanjay/-

Jangir Singh v. R.S.R.T.C.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangir Singh v. R.S.R.T.C.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar and Ors. Vs Devinder Kumar and Ors.

I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Abdul Saleem and Ors.

Nandlal and Ors. Vs Narayani Devi and Ors.

Ram Chandra Vs Dashrath Singh and Ors.

Mst. Sovni and Ors. Vs Prathvi Raj Singh and Ors.

Kesar Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd.