J&K High Court Directs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Enforce Attendance of the Witnesses

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On 26th August 2020, Justice Sanjeev Kumar heard the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nand Kishore Sharma, via video-conferencing. The Court set aside the findings of the Tribunal by giving certain directions.

Facts of the case

On 31st October 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an order which entitled the claimants with compensation of ₹7,38,400 along with a future interest of 7.5% per annum. The insurer, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has filed an appeal against the above order.

The Tribunal’s order was challenged on the following grounds –

  • The driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid driving licensing to drive a truck. The insurer was, thus, not liable to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal did not appreciate this fact. 
  • The Tribunal did not give an opportunity to the insurer to lead its evidence. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who were cited as witnesses, were not summoned. This was despite the insurer seeking the Tribunal’s assistance to summon them. Further, the insurer had also deposited the requisite diet expenses. However, the insurer did not challenge the quantum of compensation.

Arguments of the Insurer

The learned counsel for the insurer argued that the Tribunal did not follow the provisions of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under this Section, the Tribunal has the power to enforce the attendance of the witnesses. If the Tribunal had allowed examining the witnesses, the insurer would have proved that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, did not hold a valid driving license. 

Arguments of the Claimants

The learned counsel for the claimants argued that even if the witnesses were examined, the position of the claimants would remain unchanged. Further, even if the insurer proves that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time accident, did not hold an effective license, the Tribunal would apply the principle of ‘pay and recover’. Therefore, the insurer would be liable to compensate the claimants in the first instance. 

Court’s Analysis

The provisions of Section 169 are clear and unequivocal. The application for summoning the witnesses is filed along with requisite expenses deposited. Therefore, it is obligatory upon the Tribunal to issue process and enforce the attendance of such witnesses. Thus, it is clear that the insurer was deprived of an adequate opportunity to lead the evidence. The omission of summoning the witnesses calls for remand. However, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants would not change. This is even if the insurer succeeds in proving its contention.

Court’s Decision

The findings of the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with the following directions –

  • The Tribunal must summon the witnesses of the insurer.
  • The insurer must be allowed to examine the witnesses to discharge its burden of proof. Thus, the issue shall be decided based on fresh evidence.
  • All the parties to the claim petition should be given a full opportunity to contest on the issue.
  • Notwithstanding the remand and direction for determination of this issue afresh, the insurer must pay the awarded amount along with interest. However, the amount already released by this Court in favour of the claimants need not be paid again. The Registry shall release the amount deposited with it in favour of the claimants as per the terms and conditions of the award.
  • The right of the insurer to recover the award amount, paid to the claimants, from the insured/owner of the offending vehicle shall depend upon determination and decision of the Tribunal on the issue. Further, also depends on its effect on the liability of the insurer.

The Court disposed of the appeal along with the connected application.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -