LexUNION OF INDIA versus BHAGWATI PRASAD (D) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. BHAGWATI PRASAD (D) AND ORS. MARCH 7, 200 I B [G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Section 110-A-Compensation-Application for-Claim against Railway C Administration-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Jurisdiction to entertain- A taxi collided with a Passenger Train resulting in the death of some passengers and bodily injuries to some-Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the Railway Administration-High Court upheld the Tribunal's order-Correctness of-Held: Tribunal.has jurisdiction to entertain D the claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but also against any other vehicle which comes in collision including a Passenger Train- Tribunal also has jurisdiction to entertain the claim against another joint tortfeasor connected with the accident even though the accident is due to the sole and exclusive negligence of such other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the motor vehicle in question-Hence, Tribunal has jurisdiction E to entertain claim against the Railway Administration. A taxi came in collision with a Passenger Train as a result of which some passengers died and some sustained bodiiy injuries. Applications were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the insurer of the taxi F as well as against the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration contended that the T~ibunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the Railway Administration. The Tribunal held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain application for claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but also against any other vehicle, which came in collision, and in the G case in hand, against the Railway Administration. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order. Hence this appeal. H The following question arose before the Court:- Whether an application filed before a Motor Accfdents Claims Tribunal ' 290 • ' U.0.L v. BHAGWATI PRASAD 291 for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury A -.,. to persons arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle and the claim 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 then would the Tribunal lose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the B joint tortfeasor? •. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A claim for compensation on account of the accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle could be filed before a Motor Accidents :>-· Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not only C against ihe owner or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also against another joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. [296-A] ' -· ... Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, [1997] 8 SCC 683, D approved. 1.2. A combined reading of Sections 110 and 110-A of the Act which deal with the constitution of one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and application for compensation arising out of an accident, as specified in Section 110(1) unequivocally indicates that the Claims Tribunal would have E the jurisdiction to entertain application for compensation both by the persons injured or legal representatives of the deceased when the accident arose out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. The crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is the accident arising o~t of the use of Motor Vehicle and, therefore, if there has been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and the Railway train, then all F those persons injured or legal representatives of the deceased 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 tile Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry, the Tribunal G comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected witl1 the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the Motor Vehicle then the Tribunal cannot be held t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.