Jharkhand High Court
Gyananada Jha vs United India Insurance Company ... on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 114 of 2015
------
Gyananada Jha ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Deoghar
2. Manju Devi
3. Upashi Manjhi
4. Bablu Manjhi
5. Anita Manjhi ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
11/30.11.2021: Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.
Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the order dated 08.12.2014
passed in Title Claim Suit No. 28 of 2010 passed by District Judge III-cum, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Dumka which has been passed under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner of the vehicle
submits that the Tribunal has wrongly directed the appellant to pay the amount of
Rs. 50,000/-. While awarding the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of Section 140
of the Motor Vehicle Act, he submits that there is a valid insurance policy and thus
it is the insurer of the vehicle who should be directed to pay the said amount. He
further submits that during investigation of criminal Case being Saraiyahat P.S.
Case No. 157 of 1999, it has been found that the vehicle of this appellant was not
involved in the accident. On this ground the appellant challenges the award under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Rajeev Sharma appearing on behalf of the
claimants-respondents submits that the impugned order which has been passed
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act is interim in nature which is based on
the principle of no fault liability. He submits that from the impugned judgment it is
clear that in Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 157 of 1999, the appellant herein was an
accused and he was enlarged on bail. He submits that later on though he was
acquitted but it cannot be said that the vehicle involved does not belong to him.
Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the
Insurance Company by referring to para 6 of the impugned order submits that at
the time of deciding the petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the
appellant herein who is the owner had not produced any document of policy which
can suggest that the vehicle on the date of accident was duly insured.
After hearing the parties, I find that this impugned order has been passed
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Order under Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicle Act is interim in nature which is based on the principle of no fault liability.
While passing the order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Court has
to consider as to whether any accident has taken place or any injury or death has
taken place arising out of the same accident and whether there was a vehicle
involved in the said accident and if these conditions are fulfilled then an order is
passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act in favour of the claimants. Now
while considering the aforesaid aspect, if it is found that the vehicle is not insured
then automatically the owner of the vehicle has to be saddled with the liability to
pay the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In this case, I
found that while deciding the petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
the Tribunal has clearly concluded that at that point of time there was no document
to suggest that the vehicle was insured. The Tribunal concluded that as a result of
this accident, involving a vehicle belonging to the appellant, the deceased died.
These conditions are sufficient to pass an order under Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicle Act. Since prima facie the Court found that the vehicle of the appellant was
not insured, the Court directed the appellant/owner to pay the amount of Rs.
50,000/-. I find no illegality in the aforesaid order. Thus, I find no ground to set
aside the impugned order.
During course of the argument it has been submitted by the appellant that
the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act arising out of the same
incident is still pending before the court below. If that be so, it will be open to the
appellant to take all the points i.e. non-involvement of the vehicle in the accident,
the fact that the vehicle was duly insured etc. before the Tribunal. Ultimately, based
on evidences and materials on record, if the Court finds that the vehicle was duly
insured and the appellant has got no liability to pay the amount of compensation
assessed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it will be open to the Tribunal
to pass an appropriate order directing the concerned Insurance Company to
indemnify the appellant, to the extent of the award u/s 140 of M.V.Act also.
Owner of the vehicle is directed to satisfy the interim order dated 8th
December, 2014 passed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act, in Title Claim Suit No. 28 of 2010
within four weeks.
The Tribunal is directed to take a decision on the Claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and dispose of the same expeditiously.
Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited before this Court at the time of
filing of this appeal, should be disbursed to the claimants after proper verification.
The balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be paid by the appellant to the
claimants before the Tribunal within four weeks.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Rajnish/c.p.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
