The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award/judgment dated 30.08.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, with a prayer to set aside the impugned award/judgment and to award the compensation, as claimed by them. The Court observed that Proof of negligence is the condition precedent in all cases for the grant of compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal below under Section 166 of the MV Act. As per the petitioners, on 31.10.2007 deceased Mahinder Singh was coming on a motorcycle from Paonta Sahib and when they reached near village Surajpur, a tractor came at a high speed and hit the same against the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the deceased and the pillion rider sustained simple as well as grievous injuries, and the deceased died on the spot. The petitioners also averred that the deceased was a government employee, working in H.P. State Electricity Board and his monthly income was Rs.10,000/-, including a salary of Rs.8,000/-. After deciding issues No.1 against the petitioners and issue No.3 in favor of respondent No.3, the claim petition was dismissed, however, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded on account of the principle of no-fault liability. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants-petitioners preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act.
The Court noted that for succeeding in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the petitioners to prove that the vehicle that caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Proof of negligence is the condition precedent in all cases for the grant of compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court observed that after perusal of the entire evidence on record, it has become clear that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Mahinder Singh himself. The Court said that since the petitioners have failed to prove on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the tractor, therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned award/judgment dated.
The Court remarked that a witness deposed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question by its driver/respondent No.3. However, no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the testimony of this witness as she was not present at the spot at the time of the accident.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned award/judgment dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal below and the same requires no interference.
Case Title: Mehar Kaur & Ors. v Roshan Lal & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sushil Kukreja
Case no.: FAO No. 503 of 2010
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Kaushal
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
