Karnataka High Court

Smt. Ningamma vs The Union Of India on 17 December, 2021

Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra E.S.Indiresh

                            1
                                                      R
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


       DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021


                        PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR.RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

               MFA No.8522 OF 2016(RCT)
                         C/W
               MFA No.8521 OF 2016(RCT)

IN MFA 8522/2016
BETWEEN:

Smt. Ningamma,
W/o Late Ningaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Resident of Hosadoddi Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara taluk,
And District-562 159.                   ... Appellant

(By Sri. K.Shantharaj., Advocate (absent))

AND:

The Union Of India,
Represented by its,
General Manager,
                                2



Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.
                                             ... Respondent
(By Sri.Abhinay Y.T., Advocate)

IN MFA 8521/2016
BETWEEN:

1.     Shivanna,
       S/o Ninge Gowda,
       Aged about 59 years.

2.     Smt. Ningamma,
       W/o Shivanna,
       Aged about 53 years.

       Both are resident of
       Lingegowdana doddi,
       Bilagumba post,
       Ramanagara Taluk
       And District-562 159.             ... Appellants

(By Sri. K.Shantharaj., Advocate (absent))

AND:

The Union Of India,
Represented by its,
General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai-600 001.                     ... Respondent

(By Sri.Abhinay Y.T., Advocate)

      These MFAs are filed U/S     23(1) of Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, against the          Judgment and Award
Dated:15.09.2015 passed in OA      II U.204/13 & 203/2013
respectively on the file of the    Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore.
                            3



      The Reference is made by the Chief Justice in
view of two conflicting Judgments of learned Co-
Ordinate Bench to decide the issue of jurisdiction in
respect of the accident involving the death of, or
bodily injury to a person arising out of the accident
between the motor vehicle and the train/railway
administration.

      The reference, coming on for admission, this
day, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., delivered the
following:

                   JUDGMENT

This reference arises from order dated

15.07.2021 made by a Division Bench of this Court on

the ground that there are two conflicting judgments

rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court to

decide the issue of jurisdiction in respect of the

accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to a

person arising out of the accident between the motor

vehicle and the train/railway administration.

2. The factual backdrop in which the reference

has been made to this Bench needs mention.

The appellants herein were the claimants before

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short,

hereinafter referred to as 'MACT'). They have filed an

application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'MV

Act'). The MACT, by judgment and award dated

04.06.2005 allowed the applications and awarded the

compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the

respondents herein i.e., railway authorities have filed

MFA Nos.1584/2004, 10569/2005 and 10570/2005

under Section 173(1) of the MV Act before this Court.

This Court by an order dated 23.06.2009 allowed the

appeals, quashing the award passed by the MACT,

Ramanagaram in MVC Nos.414/2001, 278/1998 and

733/1998 on the ground that the MACT constituted

under the MV Act has no jurisdiction to award such

compensation, however reserved liberty to the

claimants to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal (for

short, hereinafter referred to as 'RCT') constituted

under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for

short, hereinafter referred to as the 'RCT Act') and

seek the remedies. The RCT was directed to decide

the claims of the claimants on merit, in accordance

with law, without going into the question of limitation,

if the claimants were to approach the RCT.

3. Pursuant to the said order, the claimants have

approached the RCT in OA II U 203/2013 and OA II U

204/2013. The RCT, placing reliance on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COLUMBIA

SPORTSWEAR COMPANY vs. DIRECTOR OF

INCOME TAX, BANGALORE reported in AIR 2012

SC 3038 and having regard to Section 13 of RCT Act

has held that RCT has no jurisdiction to decide the

case on hand and accordingly, dismissed the

applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the

claimants have filed the instant appeals before this

Court.

4. Since there are two conflicting judgments

rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, a

Division Bench of this Court referred the matter for

consideration of the aforesaid question.

5. There is no representation on behalf of the

appellants.

6. Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the

respondents has fairly submitted that in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

UNION OF INDIA vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD

(DEAD) AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 3 SCC

661, an application filed by the claimants before the

MACT under Section 166 of the MV Act is

maintainable.

He further submitted that as per Section 125 of

the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger can file a claim

petition for compensation on account of untoward

incident before the RCT. The compensation in respect

of the accident involving the death or, or bodily injury

to the person arising out of the use of motor vehicle,

the claim petition is maintainable before the MACT

under the MV Act.

Lastly, he has submitted that in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of this case, the appeals are

liable to be dismissed and MFA Nos.1784/2004,

10569/2015 and 10580/2015 disposed of by this

Court on 23.06.2009 requires to be recalled and

restored.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the

respondents.

8. The MV Act is a beneficial and social welfare

legislation. The claims for compensation arising out of

accidents by use of motor vehicles, till the amendment

of the MV Act were tried by the Civil Court. The

Legislature being aware of the increasing number of

the accidents involving motor vehicles and the

resultant misery to the persons involved in the

accident or their dependents and the immediate need

for financial succor provided a special forum (speedy

and inexpensive) in the form of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal for adjudicating upon the claims for

compensation in respect of accidents involving the

death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the

use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of

a third party so arising or both and it also sought to

bar the expensive and tardy jurisdiction of the Civil

Court by enacting Section 175 of the MV Act.

9. For better understanding, Sections 165, 166

and 175 of the MV Act are extracted hereinbelow:

"165. Claims Tribunals.-- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163A.

(2) A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he--

(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or

(b) is, or has been a District Judge, or

(c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge.

(4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.

166. Application for compensation.-- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be made--

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so

joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

(2) Every application under sub-

section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

(3) [***]

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.

175. Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court."

Section 165 of the MV Act empowers the State

Government to constitute one or more Motor Accident

Claims Tribunals by Notification in the Official Gazette.

Section 165 of the MV Act further indicates that the

MACT would have the jurisdiction to entertain the

application for compensation both by the person

injured or the legal representatives of the deceased

when the accident arose out of the use of motor

vehicle. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing

of an application. Under Section 175 of the MV Act,

there is a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in

the area where MACT has been constituted.

10. The determination of the parameter of the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal envisaged under Section

165 of the MV Act would depend upon the

construction of the expression 'compensation in

respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor

vehicles' occurring in Section 165 of the MV Act. The

aforesaid expression indicates that there should be an

accident which should be as a result of the use of

motor vehicles. Besides the aforesaid spelled out

limiting words, the aforesaid expression envisages no

other limitations, that is, once it is held that there has

been an accident as a result of the use of motor

vehicle in which either a person has died or has

received injuries or there has been damage to any

property of a third party, the MACT would have the

jurisdiction to the person or authority against whom

the claim is made, may be any.

11. We are clearly of the opinion, upon a

provision and the scheme of the enactment as

projected by these provisions, the MACT constituted

under the Act is empowered to adjudicate upon all

claims for compensation in respect of accident

involving the death or the bodily injury to persons,

where the accident arises out of the use of a motor

vehicle and, that in awarding compensation in respect

of such an accident the MACT is empowered to award

compensation not only against the insurer, the owner

and the driver of the motor vehicle but also against

those on account of whose negligence the accident

may have been caused. The words "in respect of

accidents arising out of the use of the motor

vehicle............" occurring in Section 165 of the MV

Act are words of the widest possible amplitude. We

see no reason either on the plain language of Section

165 of the MV Act or in any other allied provisions of

the scheme of the Act as manifested by the relevant

provisions, which may have inhibited or barred the

jurisdiction of the MACT to entertain an application for

compensation in respect of third parties, in the

present case, the Railway.

12. In fact, the similar issue arose for

consideration before a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges

of the Apex Court in the case of BHAGWATI

PRASAD (supra), wherein it is held as herienbelow:

"Where an application is filed before a claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles and the claims is made both against the insurer, owner and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of the joint tortfeasor and not the driver of the motor vehicle the Tribunal would not loose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the joint tortfeasor. The reason being as follows:-

The crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is "the accident arising out of use of Motor Vehicle," and therefore, if there has been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and Railway train then all those persons injured

or died could make application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal not only against the owner, driver or insurer of the motor vehicle but also against the Railway Administration. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and the Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry the Tribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected with the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the motor vehicle then the Tribunal cannot be held to denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. In other words, in such a case also the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor, and in the case in hand, it would be fully justified to award compensation against the Railway Administration if ultimately it is held that it was the sole negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. To denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction on a finding that

the driver of the motor vehicle was not negligent, would cause undue hardship to every claimant. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of motor vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the motor vehicle in question."

13. It is very clear from the above judgment that

there has been a collision between the motor vehicle

and the railway train, then all those persons injured or

the legal representatives of the deceased could make

an application for compensation before the MACT not

only against the owner, driver or the insurer of the

motor vehicle but also against the railway

administration. Once such an application is held to be

maintainable and the MACT entertains such an

application, if in the course of enquiry the MACT gives

a finding that it is the other joint tort-feasor

connected with the accident who was responsible and