Janak Raj v. Union Of India (uoi) And Others

R.P. Sethi J.

1. In exercise of his powers under Sec 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu vide the order impugned in this appeal directed the payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants of Nazir Ahmad deceased who died in a motor accident to be paid by the appellant. It is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal was against law and facts which is required to be set aside. It is alleged that the Tribunal has passed the order in haste without taking into consideration the relevant record. The impugned order has been passed against the settled provisions of law inasmuch as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to plead his case and that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without holding a summary inquiry. .

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

3. Section 92-A of theprovides that where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section, which shall be payable in respect of the death of any person amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and in case of permanent disablement a fixed sum of Rs. 7,500/- According to Sub-section [3] of Seclion92-A of the in such case the claimant is not required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was doc to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or the owners of the vehicle and such claim for compensation shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. Under scc.92-B of the, the right to claim such compensation is in addition to any other right to claim compensation in any respect thereof under any other provision of the or of any other law for the lime being in force. Such claim has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. u/s 92-E of the, the provisions of Chapter VII-A have the overriding effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the or of any other law for the time being in force. Sections 92-A,92-B,92-C,92-D and 92-E were introduced in die Act by way of an amendment vide Act No. 47 of 1982 which came into force on 1.10.1982. For the first time the legislature thought it proper to make provision for directing the award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants of the deceased of an accident and a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to a victim of an accident suffering permanent disablement by way of no fault liability during the pendency of the main claim petition. The right to claim compensation under jec.92-A is in addition to the other rights on the principle of fault to claim compensation in respect thereof under the provisions of the or of any other law for the time being in farce. The provisions of this section have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure the object of the enactment meant for providing immediate assistance to the victims of the motor accident or their legal heirs. The right of appeal to an aggrieved person has been provided u/s 110-D of the which reads as under:

Section 110-D Appeal - [ 1 ] Subject to the provisions of sub-section [2], any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal May, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court

Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. [2] No appeal shall, lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than two thousand rupees.

4. The appeals arc, therefore, maintainable against the awards passed in terms of Sec 110-B of the and not the orders under Scc.92-A of the Apt. It is well settled proposition of law that an appeal is a statutory right which cannot be conferred upon a party unless a special provision is made under law for filing such an appeal. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of C.F.M.A. No. 1 of 1987 entitled The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Vs. Maya Devi and Others, , refused to entertain the appeal holding an order passed u/s 92-A of the to be an interim order, not appealable. Similarly, this Court dismissed CJF. M.A. No. 74 of 1986 and held:

Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and while interpreting the same it is to be liberally construed. The object of the section cannot be defeated on hyper technicalities. In this case I find that since Sub section [1] of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for "joint and several liability the appellant cannot be heard to make a grievance of the interim award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, particularly when it is not disputed that the claimant suffered a permanent disablement as a result of the accident in which the vehicle insured with the appellant was involved.

5. Another Bench of this Court held in Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. N.D. Danial Stores [Sic];

The provisions of Section 92- A are meant for consideration of granting an interim relief ex gratia to the legal representatives of the deceased or to the claimant, as the case may be. This part of legislation being based on socioeconomic conditions of the citizens is a beneficial piece of legislation, which is not made subject of appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court in a Division Bench as well as in the single Bench has held the view that an appeal is not entertainable against the interim relief granted u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. It was again held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurmeet Singh [Sic] that no appeal was maintainable against an interim order passed u/s 92-A of the .

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to Sant Ram and Another Vs. Surya Pal and Others, ; Mohammad Iqbal v. Bhimaiah 1985 ACJ 546 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Aleixo Fernandes and Others, to urge that an order passed u/s 92-A of the was appealable. It appears that in the aforesaid judgments no objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the appeal with respect to an interim order u/s 92-A of the. The courts appear to have proceeded on the assumption that the orders u/s 92-A of the were appealable. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and not applicable in the case. Otherwise also in view of the consistent view of this Court as referred hereinabove, it is held that an order passed u/s 92-A of the is not appealable. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine along with CMP No. 600 of 1988.