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

Must Read

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

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

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -