Skip to content


Ramcharan Soni Vs. Francis Lakda and 2 ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inII(1984)ACC493
AppellantRamcharan Soni
RespondentFrancis Lakda and 2 ors.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him.....for consideration is that 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 the 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.....
Judgment:

B.M. Lal, J.

1. The short point arises for consideration is that 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 the 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 Vehicles' given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles, Act 1939, it means:

(18) 'Motor Vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of population is transmitted thereto 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 or in any other enclosed premises.

A scooter comes within the definition of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicle 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 Claim Tribunal, Raigarh for its decision on merits.afresh. Councel's fee Rs. 500/- if 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 as expeditiously as early as possible.


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