Skip to content


Ramcharan Soni Vs. Francis Lakda and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1986)ACC400
AppellantRamcharan Soni
RespondentFrancis Lakda and ors.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....consideration is whether the motor accidents claims tribunal constituted under section 110 of the motor vehicles act, 1939 could entertain the claim for damages caused to the motor vehicle in an accident.2. before the motor accidents claims tribunal raigarh presided over by the district judge, raigarh the applicant-claimant made a claim for compensation relating to damage caused to the scooter for the amount of rs. 5,776/- which met with an accident. the appellant claimant therefore, made an application under section 110-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939. in the application, the claimant has claimed the damages caused to the scooter alone.3. the motor accidents claims tribunal, by the impugned order, dated 23-2-1978, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that provisions of.....
Judgment:

B.M. Lal, J.

1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted Under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could entertain the claim for damages caused to the motor vehicle in an accident.

2. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Raigarh presided over by the District Judge, Raigarh the applicant-claimant made a claim for compensation relating to damage caused to the scooter for the amount of Rs. 5,776/- which met with an accident. The appellant claimant therefore, made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the application, the claimant has claimed the damages caused to the scooter alone.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, by the impugned order, dated 23-2-1978, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that provisions of Section 110-A do not envisage grant of damages caused to the vehicle. Therefore, the claimant-appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal before this court against the said order.

4. Provisions of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have been amended suitably from time to time. 'Damages to any property of a third party' or to motor vehicles, have been added in the original Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 by Amendment Act 56 of 1969 which came into force with effect from 2-3-1970. Therefore, for damages to motor vehicles also a claim could be entertained under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. According to the definition of 'motor vehicle' given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 it means:

2(18). 'motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted there to from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory of any other enclosed premises.

A scooter comes within the definition of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore, the claim for damages, in my opinion is maintainable under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without looking and discussing the relevant provisions has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim.

7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed with costs. The order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh is set aside and the case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh for its decision on merits afresh. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- is certified.

8. Before closing the case, it is directed that this being a claim case of 1977, the Claims Tribunal should take care to decide this claim preditiously as early as possible.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //