H. Ravi Prakash Reddy vs R.K. Krishna Murthy and Another

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.—First respondent filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation against the revision petitioner and the second respondent for the injuries suffered by him due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed his counter contesting the claim. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the validity of insurance policy taken out by the revision petitioner expired, and as insurance for the bus involved in the accident was not in force by the date of accident, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent.

Revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend his counter by taking a plea that the Tribunal constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim inasmuch as the vehicle was not insured by the date of accident. The Tribunal by the order under revision dismissed the said petition. Hence the revision.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strongly relying on Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad v. Parma Nand Thakur 1985 ACJ 290 (Patna) contended that since the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured by the date of accident, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction and only Civil Court will have jurisdiction because plying of vehicles without insurance is prohibited by the Act.

It is well known that pleadings should contain only facts but not evidence or questions of law. Whether the Tribunal, on the facts pleaded, has jurisdiction or not is a pure question of law. So even without a pleading, that question relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. For that reason only this revision had to be dismissed.

Though merits of a proposed amendment need not be gone into or considered, at the time of disposal of the application for amendment since amendments which are frivolous and which are intended to delay disposal of the case need not be allowed, I wish to go into the merit of the proposed amendment, which, as stated earlier, can be gone into by the Tribunal even at the time of arguments, though no specific plea in that regard was taken in the pleadings.

Parma Nand Thakur case (1 supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner arose out of an application filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (1939 Act) in which a learned Judge of the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court held that in respect of vehicles not insured as provided by the provisions of the 1939 Act causing an accident, the provisions of Chapter VIII of that Act are not attracted and so Civil Court only will have jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation by the victims of the accident or their heirs. That decision, obviously, was rendered without keeping in view Section 110-F of the 1939 Act which lays down that after constitution of Claims Tribunals for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which has to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. If the owner of the motor vehicle, who is bound to insure the vehicle as per Section 146 of the Act fails to insure it and plies it or allows it to be plied on the road, he will be liable for punishment u/s 196 of the Act. His negligence in not renewing the insurance cannot set at naught the bar contained in Section 175 of the Act. So I am unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in that case. In fact, Union of India Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and Others, supports my view. In that case a taxi collided with Allahabad Saharanpur passenger train resulting in the death of some of the passengers travelling in the taxi and injuries to some others. The legal representatives of a deceased victim filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the 1939 Act in which the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application was put in issue. When the case came up before it the apex Court held that if an accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle the Tribunal''s jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor, and not due to the negligence of the motor vehicle in question. In this case the first respondent contends that he received injuries only due to an accident caused by the motor vehicle belonging to the revision petitioner. So it is clear that the claim in this case arose out of an accident which occurred due to the use of a motor vehicle. So as per Section 175 of the Act the Tribunal constituted under the Act only, but not the Civil Court that will have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation.

So, it is clear that the petition for amendment is filed only with a view to delay the proceedings. As no purpose would be served in allowing the petition, I find no grounds to interfere with the order dismissing the petition and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.