Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: quoting wrong provision in The Divisional Manager vs Pachaimmal on 25 September, 2023Matching Fragments
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked, on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 marked.
6. Based on the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal in point No.1, has held that even though in the petition, the claimants have quoted the provision under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation. The evidence has been adduced through the negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry, hence, the claim petition is to be treated under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, since quoting the wrong provision of law is not impediment in granting proper relief and further held that the deceased was died only due to the negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-18-F-7329. In point No.2, the Tribunal has quantified and granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,78,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization to the claimants. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. In the present case, the point for consideration is, whether the claimants herein has invoked section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act with intentionally or they have quoted wrong provision of law at the time of filing the compensation. On perusal of the records, more particularly, the claim petition which shows that originally the claim petition was filed by the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, there is a correction made by the claimants after deleting the section 166, altered to section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act to state that the petition has been filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis only under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, similarly the claimants in their pleadings have stated as: "Though F.I.R. was filed under section 174 Cr.P.C., the deceased been employed as a cleaner under first respondent, hence this petition is filed in the Court under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This shows that intentionally the claimants have invoked section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation".
15. The Tribunal without considering this aspect has held that there is a quoting of wrong provision of law, is not a ground to reject granting of compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has converted the section 163-A to 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded compensation. It is settled law that wrong quoting of provision of law is not impediment in granting https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis remedies to the litigants, especially, in the case of beneficial legislation, wrong quoting of provision is not a ground in rejecting the claim. However, in this case, the records more particularly the pleadings and subsequent conduct of parties changing the provision of claim supports the case of the insurance company that they have contested the claim only U/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation by invoking section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act suo motto without looking into the specific pleadings of the claimants therein.