Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mst. Hansi And Ors. on 21 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: I(1997)ACC134, 1996ACJ571, AIR1996RAJ71, 1996(1)WLC327
ORDER B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel Shri Loonkar has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- without holding any inquiry into the matter about the death of the deceased, which took place on the road while driving the motor-cycle.
3. Learned counsel Shri Chouhan for the claimants raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision petition. He submitted that only appeal lies in view of Section 173 read with Ss. 140 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). He submits that even if revision lies, then also no error of jurisdiction is committed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court should dismiss the revision petition. He also submitted that no inquiry was required to be made by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the behaviour of Ajay, who was alleged to have driving the motor cycle at the time of accident, was such, which supports the case of the claimants that it was only Ajay and not the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident when the motor cycle slipped in which deceased Sadique died.
4. Learned counsel Shri Loonkar has relied upon the judgment of single Bench of this Court reported in 1991 Ace CJ 32 and submitted that the revision is maintainable and not the appeal.
It is a small judgment and I would like to reproduce the whole judgment:--
"1991 Acc CJ 32 (Raj) In the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 312/89;
decided on 6-7-90) Present Mr. Justice D. L. Mehta For appellants : Mr. R. R. L. Gupta JUDGMENT Mehta, J.
1. Heard and perused the order.
2. Appeal does not lie against the order granting interim compensation under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal may be treated as revision petition and no question of jurisdiction is involved and the court exercised the power vested in it. As far as limitation is concerned, ordinarily it is said that the beneficial legislation should be interpreted in favour of the party for whose benefit the law has been enacted. Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force.
3. Thus, it is very clear that Section 144 is independent of the provisions of Section 166 and no limitation has been prescribed under Section 140(92A). Thus, the question of limitation does not arise.
4. In the result, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is rejected. Appeal dismissed."
Going through the aforesaid judgment, it appears that this Court has never held that appeal lies. It appears that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation that appeal does not lie against the order granting interim compensation under Section 92A (now Section 140) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and requested to treat his appeal as revision petition and dismiss the same on the ground that no question of jurisdiction was involved and the Court exercised the power vested in it has been referred to in the judgment. In fact, the learned Judge has held in para 4 of his judgment that, there is no force in the miscellaneous appeal, and he dismissed the same. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel that revision lies and not appeal, is wholly misconceived. It must be stated that the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal and not the revision.
5. At this stage, learned counsel Shri Chouhan pointed out the judgment of Divi-sion Bench of this Court reported in 1993 Acc CJ 958, delivered in Civil Appeal No. 18/91 arising out of the order passed by the single Bench judgment against the order passed by the Tribunal on no fault liability awarding Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants. It is interesting to note that the learned single Judge, who dismissed the above appeal, was party to it.
6. Then, learned counsel Shri Loonkar tried to argue reading the provisions of Ss. 140, 166, 168 and 173 of the Act of 1988 and submitted that the word used in Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is "compensation" and not the "award". According to his submission appeal lies under Section 173 against award and not against the compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, the revision petition would lie and not appeal.
7. This submission of learned counsel has no substance. It is required to be rejected for two reasons:-- (1) that an application for compensation has to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and award has to be passed under Section 168 and (2) under Section 140 for getting interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/ -, an application is required to be filed. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 168 makes it very clear that where such application is made for compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and/or any other claim for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the proviso to Chapter 10. While deciding such application, if the order is passed to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, then it is nothing, but an interim award. If it is an award, then obviously, the appeal would lie and not the revision.
8. A Division Bench of M.P. High Court also held in a case reported in 1989 Acc CJ 1129, that order of compensation under Sec. 92A (old Act) is in the nature of passing an award and is appealable under Section 110-B (old Act); revision under Section 115, CPC is not tenable. It has held that if it is not construed as an award, it would make its recovery impossible in the absence of any provision of mode of recovery and the very object of Legislature in introducing Chapter VII-A to provide speedy relief to the victims of motor accidents would be defeated. I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges of M.P. High Court. Therefore, on the ground of maintainability, this revision petition has to be rejected.
9. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the revision was maintainable, against the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal by awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, then also in absence of any jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal, this Court would not interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C.
10. However, learned counsel Shri Loonkar has vehemently submitted that this is a fit case in which the learned Tribunal ought to have made the inquiry to find out whether the deceased died in the accident while driving the motor-cycle himself or not? In support of his argument, he has read out certain statements of the witnesses, which were recorded by the police. But, the case of the claimants is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ajay. Mr. Loonkar has read out the relevant portion of the statement of Ajay recorded by the police, wherein he claimed to have witnessed the accident. If it was so, then it was his duty to go to the police and to report about the incident. But, he did nothing. It was only police, who found the dead body of Sadique. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the case of the claimants is more probable and required to be accepted. Under the circumstances, no further inquiry was required to be made by the Tribunal.
11. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is dismissed, firstly on the ground that the revision does not lie against the impugned order, and, secondly, even if the revision is maintainable, then also, no error much less jurisdictional error was committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
The petitioner-Insurance Company has dragged the poor claimants, who are the widow and minor son of the deceased before this Court by way of this frivolous revision petition. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay a special cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent-claimants. The same shall be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks from today. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- if deposited by the Insurance Company, shall be immediately paid to the claimants by the Tribunal by way of A/c Payee Cheque. As and when the amount of Rs. 2500/- by way of special cost is deposited, the same shall also be paid to the claimants by way of A/c Payee Cheque. The request to pay the amount on solvent security, is rejected.