Important Judgments on Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

 Important Judgments on Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

 U/S 140 – No Fault Liability – Claimant need not to plea and establish negligence and he is only required to prove that injuries sustained due to vehicular accident. 2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay) NFL application not filled along with main petition Tribunal rejected the application filed later on HC confirmed the said order whether valid held ; no. claimant can file NFL u/s 140 at any time during pendency of main claim petition. 2010 (8) SCC 620.

No order of investment can be passed in the order passed u/s 140 of the M. V. Act. First Appeal 1749 of 2012 (Coram Jst. Harsha Devani).

Constructive res judicata Whether order passed u/s 140 of the Act, qua negligence of the driver is binding to the tribunal as constructive res judicata, while deciding the claim petition u/s 166 of the Act? Held ; Yes.

F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor Siddharth Makranbhai. 2012 (2) GLH 465 Siddik U. Solanki. Judgment

delivered in the case of 2012 (2) GLH 465Siddik U. Solanki is modified in First Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied matters, reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 1988 GUJ = 2015 ACC 630(Guj)= 2016(1) GLH 68.

U/s 140 Whether amount paid u/s 140 of the can be recovered in case if the main claim petition is dismissed. Held ; No.

2014 ACJ 708 (Raj) – SC judgment in the case of O I Com.

v/s Angad Kol, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, para Nos. 4 to 8

relied upon

An application u/s 140 has to be decided as expeditiously as

possible – an order of hear the same along with the main claim

petition is bad. 2013 ACJ 1371 (Bom).

Jurisdiction of Tribunal:

Following are the relevant judgments on the point of

Jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Tribunal.

1Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H insurance

company is also having office in District C whether the Tribunal

at District C has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition held ; yes.

2009 ACJ 564 (SC).

Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on pilgrimage Journey started from India Opponents are Indian citizens and having offices in India Whether claim petition in India is maintainable. Held ; Yes.

2012 ACJ 1452 ((P&H).

Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline. 2012 ACJ 1608.

In accident vehicle got damaged claim petition filed against

one of the IC claim petition, partly allowed claimant preferred

another application against another IC whether maintainable?

Held ; No.

2012 AAC 2944 (Chh)SC

judgments followed.

Jurisdiction Damage to property of owner whether maintainable? Held ; No tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain only those applications wherein damage is caused to property of the third party. 2005 ACJ (SC) 1, Dhanraj v/s N.I.A. Com is relied upon. 2012 ACJ 2737.

Jurisdiction after the death of the her husband, deceased was

staying with her brother whether claim petition can be

preferred at the place where she is staying with her brother?

Held ; Yes.

2012 ACJ 2811.

U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal Claimant migrant

labourer Appeal by insurer Award amount not disputed Setting

aside of award on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction Would

only result in retrial before appropriate Tribunal S. C. would exercise powers under Art.142 to do complete justice in such a case. AIR 2009 SC 1022Mantoo

Sarkar v/s O.I. Com. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 2512 (MP).

– Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident occurred out the

territorial jurisdiction of tribunal and claimant and driver/owner

staying outside the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal, claim

petition is maintainable, if IC is carrying business with the

territorial jurisdiction of tribunal. 2016 (3) SCC 43 – Malati

Sardar v/s N I Com.

Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal Claim for loss of business

income due to nonuse of vehicle Falls under head damage to

property Claims Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain

and decide such claim. AIR 2007 Guj 39 but also see 2013 ACJ

1732 (P & H).

Jurisdiction where a claim petition is maintainable Good discussion. 2013 ACJ 1787.

Cause of action Jurisdiction Accident occurred in Nepal Bus was registered in India Whether a claim petition is maintainable in India? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1807 (Bih).

Estoppel Consumer court held that driver was holding valid

licence and IC is directed to pay amount by Consumer court Whether IC can take same defence before the MAC Tribunal. Held ; No.

IC is estopped from raising such stand. 2014 ACJ (Kar) 2736.

12U/ s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion accident occurred

prior to the said deletion claim petition filed after deletion and

since years after the accident whether claim petition is maintainable? Held ; Yes.

Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas accident

occurred in the year 1990 whether claim petition is time

barred? Held ; no.

2011 ACJ 1585 (Jark).

LimitationU/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion accident

occurred prior to the said deletion claim petition filed

after deletion and since years after the accident whether

claim petition is maintainable? Held ;Yes.

2015 ACJ 221 (Chh).

Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground that

accident is not proved whether Tribunal erred? Held ; yes. Tribunal is supposed to conduct ‘inquiry’ not ‘trial’ in claim

petition and summery procedure has to be evolved Tribunal

could have invoked power envisaged u/s 165 of Evidence Act. 2011 ACJ 1475 (Del).