Motor Vehicles Act for the benefit of Victims, relieves them from Strict Compliance’, SC

The Supreme Court has observed that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely..The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to suits and other proceedings..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra. The Bench set aside the orders of the Claims Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court that had dismissed the claims petition filed by the family of a young man who had died in a motor vehicles accident..Factual Matrix.The deceased, one Rajendra Prasad, was travelling to a place called “Chomu” in a passenger bus. The bus met with an accident when an overspeeding truck rammed into it resulting in the death of Prasad..This incident gave rise to two legal proceedings – a criminal case against the driver of the Truck and a civil case against the Insurance company..The claimants, wife and children of the deceased, sued the Insurance company, the Truck Driver as well as the owner of the Truck before the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal for compensation to be awarded to them..Prasad was the sole bread-winner of the family and the compensation sought was for the “loss sustained on account of the untimely death of Rajendra Prasad – their only bread earner in the family.”.The Insurance Company responded to the claims with the counter that the owner of the Truck had not intimated the Insurer of the claims nor did he submit the driving licence of the offending driver to the Insurer for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the claim..The Insurer also contended that the Truck driver and the Truck owner were not impleaded as parties in the case..The Claimants, however, had submitted all the relevant documents including the FIR registered by the State against the Truck driver, post-mortem report of the deceased, insurance coverage, among other things..The claimants examined three witnesses, while the Insurer did not examine any. The Tribunal, dismissed the claim petition and held that the claimants “failed to prove the accident including the involvement of offending Truck, which caused the death of Rajendra Prasad.”.Aggrieved by this order, the claimants appealed before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, which too, dismissed the appeal. The claimants then approached the Supreme Court..The Verdict.The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that the approach and reasoning adopted by both the Tribunal as well as the High Court were not in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the High Court did not assign any reasons while dismissing the appeal which upheld the decision of the Tribunal..Reiterating the scope and nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court asserted that it is a beneficial piece of legislation..“The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained them in the accident.”.The Court held that the Claims Tribunal has the power to treat an accident report as an application for claims under Section 166(4) of the Act and can award compensation on merits..The Court also highlighted that Section 158 of the Act makes it incumbent upon a person driving a vehicle to produce documents, including driving licence, to a police officer when required. It also obligates a police officer to forward a copy of an FIR in an accident case causing death or bodily injury, to the Claims Tribunal..The scope and object of reading the two sections together, the Court said, was to quicken the process of awarding compensation..“The object of Section 158(6) read with Section 166(4) of the Act is essentially to reduce the period of pendency of claim case and quicken the process of determination of compensation amount by making it mandatory for registration of motor accident claim within one month from the date of receipt of FIR of the accident without the claimants having to file a claim petition.” .The Court also reminded that claims petitions filed under the Act are neither suits nor are they adversarial litigation..It noted that the Claims Tribunal should have allowed the petition seeking reasonable compensation. The Court reasoned that the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence, placed material documents to prove the factum of the accident, and had established, through the documents submitted, the identity of the truck driver, the truck owner and insurer..The Court also underlined that the driver and the owner of the truck remained ex-parte to the proceedings and did not rebut the claims of the claimant. As regards the insurer, they did not examine any witnesses to rebut the claims of the claimants. The claimants, on the other hand, examined three witnesses, “thereby discharging their initial burden to prove the case.”.The Court, thus, allowed the appeal and held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to reasonable compensation since the fact of accident and identity of the offenders and their insurer stood established..Read Judgment: