Claim before the motor accidents claims tribunal – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Claim before the motor accidents claims tribunal – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Motor vehicles Act, 1988, just like the earlier Act of 1939, makes the insurance of motor vehicles required. The owner of each motor vehicle is sure to insure his vehicle against third party risk. The insurance under writer,i.e.The non-depository financial institution covers the danger of loss to the third party by the utilisation of the motor vehicle. Thus, if there’s insurance against third party risk, the person suffering due to the accident (third party) caused by the utilisation of a motor vehicle  might receive compensation either from the owner or the driving force of the vehicle, or from the insurance underwriter or from them put together. All such persons’ risk of loss to whom, on account of the utilisation of the vehicle, is needed to be coated as”third party” within the sense that they’re aside from the ‘first party’ the non-depository financial institution and also the ‘second party’ the insured.

Chapter eleven of the Sections one hundred forty five to 164 contains provisions regarding “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party- Risks”. In line with section 146, not everybody will use, except as a traveler, or cause or permit the other person to use a motor vehicle  in a very public place, unless an insurance policy against third party risks, as required  by this Chapter, is in force, in reference to the utilisation of the vehicle. Section 146 (1), that contains the relevant provision is as below : ” No persons shall use, except as a traveler, or cause or permit the other person to use a motorcar in a very public place, unless there’s, in force, in reference to the utilisation of the vehicle by that person or that alternative person, because the case could also be, a policy of insurance compliant with the necessities of this Chapter. Only if within the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to hold, dangerous or venturesome product, there shall even be a policy of insurance below the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991,(6 of 1991).

See also  Case Comment: Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand

Explanation:- someone driving a motor vehicle just as a paid worker whereas there’s good in reference to the utilisation of the vehicle, no such policy as is needed by this sub- section, shall not be deemed to act in resistance of the sub -section unless he is aware of or has reason to believe that there’s no such policy good. The on top of declared demand of insurance isn’t there in respect of any vehicle closely-held by the Central Government or authorities and used for state functions unconnected with any industrial enterprise, or wherever associate exemption from the need of insurance has been given by the acceptable Government.

It has been noted on top of that, as a general rule, not everybody will wither himself use, or permit another person to create use of a motorcar, as required by Chapter eleven. resistance of this provision is punishable below Section 196 of the Act. The Section is below “196. Driving uninsured vehicle – Whoever drives a motorcar or causes or permits a motorcar to be driven in resistance to the provisions of Section 146 shall be disciplined with imprisonment which can be 3 months or with fine which can be one thousand rupees, or with both”.

Claims court And Award of Compensation:-A new forum, i.e ,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals that substituted Civil Courts has been created by the motorcars Aft for cheaper and speedier remedy to the victims of accidents of motor vehicles. Sections 165-175 (1988 Act) i.e. Secs. 110-110-F (1939 Act) deals with the fixing of claims tribunals, the procedure for managing cases returning before the tribunals, and also the award of compensation by them. Before these provisions a suit for damages had to be filed in a very civil court, on payment of ad val court fee. Below these provisions, an associate application claiming compensation is created to the Claim court while not payment of ad val court-fee. These provisions don’t produce any new liability, and also the liability remains supported by wrongful conduct law and enactments just like the Fatal Accidents Act. The position was therefore explained in Oriental hearth and General Insurance Co. v. Kamal Kamini.

See also  Inter - State Trade and Commerce

“The object of this cluster of sections 110 to 110-F of the (1939) Act is to provide an inexpensive and prompt mode of implementing liability arising out of claim for compensation in respect of accident involving the death, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the utilisation of motorcars, or injury to any property of a 3rd party thus arising, or each as named in Section one hundred ten. Before the constitution of the court, compensation might be claimed by establishment of suits for damages solely through the medium of the Civil Court on payment of ad val court fee. By providing an immediate charm to the supreme court second appeals are distributed with. The court is to follow an outline procedure for judgment of claims being provided, the sections do jot wear down the substantive law relating to determination of liability. They solely furnish a brand new mode of implementing liability. For determination of liability one has still to see the substantive law within the law of torts and also the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at any rate to the principles therefrom.”

Application for Compensation below Section 166:- Section 166 (1988 Act) i.e., sec.110(1) (1939 Act), the Claims Tribunals ar deep-seated to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving :

  1. The death of, or bodily injury to, persons,
  2. Damage to any property of a 3rd party,
  3. Both the cases.

In Kishori v. Chairman, Tribunal Services Coop. Society Ltd, it’s been command that once sensibles. The products happiness to a recipient are destroyed whereas in transit in a very good vehicle, the owner of the products, i.e The recipient can not be thought of to be a ‘Third Party’ and therefore, the Claims court doesn’t have a jurisdiction to entertain the claim of damages.

Author: Shaheera Sultana,
NBM Law College, 2nd year

Leave a Comment