General principles to be followed by the motor accident claims tribunal while trying claim cases

 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL WHILE TRYING CLAIM CASES

       The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales ( concord of india insurance co.ltd., VS Nirmala devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC)

      Where the provisions of the act are clear, no external aid to its construction such as settlement of objects and reasons is called for (k.Nandakumar Vs M.D. Thanthai periyar transport corporation 1996 ACJ 555 (SC)

     Court must not add anything to the provision of law unless the provision in the statute appears to be incomplete or little foolish; plain meaning should be given to the plain words, if those are understandable and are clear in their terms (santosh kumar VS sanjay more,2000 ACJ 422 (MP)

   If language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with a clear intention of the legislation. Any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. While interpreting, the intention and object of the legislation have to be looked upon. (United india insurance co ltd. VS Parvathi devi, 1999 ACJ 1520 (Mad-FB)

    Whenever there are two possible interpretations in a beneficial statute, then one which sub serves the objects of legislation viz., benefit to the subject should be accepted (Helen C Rebellor  VS Maharashtra state transport corporation, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC)

   If two interpretations are possible the one which sub serves the purpose and object of the act and the provision must be adopted. Also a subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to arrive at the proper interpretation and the one which fulfils the object of the act has to be adopted ( C.K. Seetharam  VS Jaya Lakshmamma, 1999 ACJ 1569 (kar)

    Where two views are possible on interpretation the view which promotes the object of the legislation is to be preferred (G.Govindan  VS The new india assurance co ltd., 1999 ACJ 781 (SC)

    In a beneficial legislation, if two views are possible the view in favour of the public should be preferred {UP state electricity board Vs District magistrate,1998 ACJ 721 (all)}

     While interpreting the provisions of the MV act, 1988 relating to accident cases, the court cannot ignore and forget that the entire system is concerned for a claimant who suffers injuries in the process of accident [United india insurance co ltd.  VS Jaimy,1998 ACJ 1318(ker)]

   Procedural laws are intended to achieve the ends of justice and to make fair adjudication between the parties. They must be interpreted liberally to achieve the object of the act.{united india insurance co ltd., VS Seno, 1998 ACJ 536 (p&H)}

   Unnecessary delay in disposal of claim application should be avoided. Just and reasonable compensation should be awarded to the claimants.