Capt. S.S. Dabas vs Anil Kumar and Another

R.S. Garg, J.

This order shall also dispose of M.A. Nos. 1200 and 1201 of 1997.

In all the three cases, the Claims Tribunal has made awards u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, finding that these were cases of death and permanent disablement, as defined u/s 142 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Mr. C.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for appellant submits that as mandatory requirements under rules 226 and 227 have not been complied with by learned Tribunal, nor by the claimants, an award u/s 140 of the Act could not be made in favour of the claimants.

On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that a bare reading of rules 226 and 227 of 1994 Rules would show that these are simply guidelines and not mandatory rules.

After hearing parties, this court is of the opinion that rule 227 would not govern the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. A rule has to be in conformity with and is also subordinate to the main provision. Section 140 provides that where some person dies or a claimant suffers permanent disablement, then the liability to pay compensation would be there on the principle of no fault. Section 140 clearly provides that at this stage, the court is only required to see as to whether somebody has died or the claimant has suffered permanent disablement, as defined u/s 142 of the Act. Rule 226 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain the information and documents necessary for awarding compensation u/s 140. Rule 227 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim of compensation u/s 140 on the basis of certain documents/information. Rule 227 nowhere provides that in absence of this material, it would have no jurisdiction to make an interim award u/s 140. Non-submission of the documents would not curtail or curb the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal in making an interim award u/s 140 of the Act. Rule 227 is a subordinate legislation which would not govern the main provision. The intention of the legislature was to provide immediate help and assistance to a sufferer, be he may an injured or the legal representative of the deceased. This provision has been introduced in the Act with a sense of humanity and having due regard to the handicap of innocent victim in establishing the negligence of the operator of the vehicle. It is to be seen that the legal representative suffers adversely because of the loss of the bread-earner and in case of an injured, he suffered permanent disablement. Many times his working capacity is adversely affected and he is also required to pay heavy expenditure for his own treatment. If at that time pittance as a solace is awarded to him, it cannot be said that for non-compliance of rule 227, the court would have no jurisdiction.

In the opinion of this court, the Tribunal was right and justified in making the interim award in each case. The appeals deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.