Jammu & Kashmir High Court
United India Insurance Co. Limited vs Bhupinder Singh And Ors. on 28 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996ACJ1122, AIR1996J&K21, AIR 1996 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 21
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, J.
1. In this appeal, the United India Insurance Company, has challenged the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kathua passed on 12-3-1993 on the sole ground of non-maintainability of the claim petition by Bhupinder Singh, respondent 1, who was the driver of the vehicle, which allegedly met with an accident resulting in the loss of Petrol and Diseal from out of the vehicle driven by Bhupinder Singh himself.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14-8-1991 at about 12.30 P.M. a collision took place between Oil Tanker No. JKP-2232 driven by Bhupinder Singh, claimant, and JK02-7787 driven by Harbans Lal, respondent. Bal Krishen, respondent, was the owner of the truck. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer of this truck, whereas United India Insurance Company limited, the appellant in the present appeal, was the insurer of the Tanker JKP-2232, driven by Bhupinder Singh, claimant (respondent No. 1 in the present appeal). The case of the claimant was that as a result of collision between two vehicles, Petrol and Diseal in the vehicle driven by Bhupinder Singh, spilt over and came out resulting in loss to him to the tune of Rs. 81,141.20. In the claim petition filed, he claimed this amount from the respondents.
3. The Tribunal after discussing the points involved in the case held that Bhupinder Singh himself was responsible for causing the accident, because of his rash and negligent driving of the Oil Tanker and because his Oil Tanker was insured with appellant United India Insurance Company Limited, it passed an award for Rs. 76,676/- and directed that out of this amount Rs. 61,341/-shall be paid by the appellant United India Insurance Company, and Rs. 6000/- by respondent, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the balance amount of Rs. 9335/- shall be paid by other respondents. The amount of compensation was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
4. Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which claims Tribunals are constituted, reads as under :--
"165. Claims Tribunal (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunals) 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."
A plain reading of this section leaves no one in any doubt that only such persons can approach the Claims Tribunal, who lodge claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury or for damages to any property of a third party. The constitution of the Claims Tribunal under Section 165(1) is only a procedural aspect. similarly, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provision has been made for filing of applications for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident. Subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under :--
"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."
5. A combined reading of the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, clearly suggests that the person who himself caused the accident and out of whose own act loss allegedly occurred to him, is not supposed to be a person coming within the scope, ambit and purview of either Section 165(1) or Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He cannot, therefore, accuse himself of rashness or negligence and attempt to get compensated for his own fault. These two aforesaid sections clearly suggest that a person can approach a Claims Tribunal by way of filing of an application only if such a person accuses another person of doing a civil wrong to him, resulting in loss to him, which he requires to be compensated for. The doing of civil wrong by the wrong doer against the applicant in a petition under Section 166(1) is the sine qua non of initiating an action. It is inconceivable that a person initiates action against himself by pleading that it was because of his fault that loss was caused to him and that he should be asked to compensate himself.
6. It is not that such a person has no remedy in law. If a person is driving a motor vehicle and, even if by his own negligence of rashness, accident occurs to his vehicle resulting in loss to him, either by way of damage to the vehicle or the goods being carried thereon, he can always lodge a claim with the insurer of the vehicle to compensate him for the loss occurring which, in terms of the insurance policy, the insurer is obliged to indemnify. If the insurer refused to indemnify such a loss, it is always open to such a person to take legal recourse by approaching a Civil Court by filing a civil suit. That is an appropriate remedy. Taking recourse to Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was neither an appropriate remedy nor a desireable course of action in the present case.
7. For what has been stated above, I find that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in entertaining the petition and in passing the award in favour of the claimant. Award accordingly is set aside.
8. The appeal is allowed. No costs.