SMT. NINGAMMA V. THE UNION OF INDIA

MFA/8522/2016

AI Insights

The case involves a legal dispute over the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) in handling compensation claims for accidents involving motor vehicles and railway trains. Initially, the claimants approached the MACT, which awarded compensation. However, this was overturned by the High Court, which directed the claimants to approach the RCT. The RCT, citing a lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the claims, leading to the current appeals. The High Court's decision clarifies that the MACT has jurisdiction over such cases, allowing claims against both the motor vehicle and railway administrations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722221 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE, UNION OF INDIA vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD (DEAD) AND OTHERS
• Laws Referred To: Railway Claims Tribunal Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Railways Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHINAY
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHANTHARAJ
• Keywords: Compensation; Jurisdiction; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Railway Claims Tribunal; Accident involving motor vehicle and train
• Section: 23(1); 125; 166; 175

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH MFA No.8522 OF 2016(RCT) C/W MFA No.8521 OF 2016(RCT) IN MFA 8522/2016 BETWEEN: Smt. Ningamma, W/o Late Ningaiah, Aged about 57 years, Resident of Hosadoddi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara taluk, And District-562 159. … Appellant (By Sri. K.Shantharaj., Advocate (absent)) AND: The Union Of India, Represented by its, General Manager, R 2 Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondent (By Sri.Abhinay Y.T., Advocate) IN MFA 8521/2016 BETWEEN: 1. Shivanna, S/o Ninge Gowda, Aged about 59 years. 2. Smt. Ningamma, W/o Shivanna, Aged about 53 years. Both are resident of Lingegowdana doddi, Bilagumba post, Ramanagara Taluk And District-562 159. … Appellants (By Sri. K.Shantharaj., Advocate (absent)) AND: The Union Of India, Represented by its, General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.Abhinay Y.T., Advocate) These MFAs are filed U/S 23(1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the Judgment and Award Dated:15.09.2015 passed in OA II U.204/13 & 203/2013 respectively on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. 3 The Reference is made by the Chief Justice in view of two conflicting Judgments of learned Co- Ordinate Bench to decide the issue of jurisdiction in respect of the accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to a person arising out of the accident between the motor vehicle and the train/railway administration. The reference, coming on for admission, this day, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T This reference arises from order dated 15.07.2021 made by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that there are two conflicting judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction in respect of the accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to a person arising out of the accident between the motor vehicle and the train/railway administration. 2. The factual backdrop in which the reference has been made to this Bench needs mention. 4 The appellants herein were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’). They have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’). The MACT, by judgment and award dated 04.06.2005 allowed the applications and awarded the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein i.e., railway authorities have filed MFA Nos.1584/2004, 10569/2005 and 10570/2005 under Section 173(1) of the MV Act before this Court. This Court by an order dated 23.06.2009 allowed the appeals, quashing the award passed by the MACT, Ramanagaram in MVC Nos.414/2001, 278/1998 and 733/1998 on the ground that the MACT constituted under the MV Act has no jurisdiction to award such compensation, however reserved liberty to the claimants to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal (for 5 short, hereinafter referred to as ‘RCT’) constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘RCT Act’) and seek the remedies. The RCT was directed to decide the claims of the claimants on merit, in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation, if the claimants were to approach the RCT. 3. Pursuant to the said order, the claimants have approached the RCT in OA II U 203/2013 and OA II U 204/2013. The RCT, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE reported in AIR 2012 SC 3038 and having regard to Section 13 of RCT Act has held that RCT has no jurisdiction to decide the case on hand and accordingly, dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the 6 claimants have filed the instant appeals before this Court. 4. Since there are two conflicting judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, a Division Bench of this Court referred the matter for consideration of the aforesaid question. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the appellants. 6. Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD (DEAD) AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 3 SCC 661, an application filed by the claimants before the MACT under Section 166 of the MV Act is maintainable. 7 He further submitted that as per Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger can file a claim petition for compensation on account of untoward incident before the RCT. The compensation in respect of the accident involving the death or, or bodily injury to the person arising out of the use of motor vehicle, the claim petition is maintainable before the MACT under the MV Act. Lastly, he has submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appeals are liable to be dismissed and MFA Nos.1784/2004, 10569/2015 and 10580/2015 disposed of by this Court on 23.06.2009 requires to be recalled and restored. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 8 8. The MV Act is a beneficial and social welfare legislation. The claims for compensation arising out of accidents by use of motor vehicles, till the amendment of the MV Act were tried by the Civil Court. The Legislature being aware of the increasing number of the accidents involving motor vehicles and the resultant misery to the persons involved in the accident or their dependents and the immediate need for financial succor provided a special forum (speedy and inexpensive) in the form of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both and it also sought to bar the expensive and tardy jurisdiction of the Civil Court by enacting Section 175 of the MV Act. 9 9. For better understanding, Sections 165, 166 and 175 of the MV Act are extracted hereinbelow: “165. Claims Tribunals.— (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163A. 10 (2) A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he— (a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or (b) is, or has been a District Judge, or (c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge. (4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them. 11 166. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so 12 joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub- section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) [***] 13 (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. 175. Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.” Section 165 of the MV Act empowers the State Government to constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals by Notification in the Official Gazette. 14 Section 165 of the MV Act further indicates that the MACT would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation both by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased when the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing of an application. Under Section 175 of the MV Act, there is a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the area where MACT has been constituted. 10. The determination of the parameter of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal envisaged under Section 165 of the MV Act would depend upon the construction of the expression 'compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles’ occurring in Section 165 of the MV Act. The aforesaid expression indicates that there should be an accident which should be as a result of the use of motor vehicles. Besides the aforesaid spelled out 15 limiting words, the aforesaid expression envisages no other limitations, that is, once it is held that there has been an accident as a result of the use of motor vehicle in which either a person has died or has received injuries or there has been damage to any property of a third party, the MACT would have the jurisdiction to the person or authority against whom the claim is made, may be any. 11. We are clearly of the opinion, upon a provision and the scheme of the enactment as projected by these provisions, the MACT constituted under the Act is empowered to adjudicate upon all claims for compensation in respect of accident involving the death or the bodily injury to persons, where the accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle and, that in awarding compensation in respect of such an accident the MACT is empowered to award 16 compensation not only against the insurer, the owner and the driver of the motor vehicle but also against those on account of whose negligence the accident may have been caused. The words \"in respect of accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle............\" occurring in Section 165 of the MV Act are words of the widest possible amplitude. We see no reason either on the plain language of Section 165 of the MV Act or in any other allied provisions of the scheme of the Act as manifested by the relevant provisions, which may have inhibited or barred the jurisdiction of the MACT to entertain an application for compensation in respect of third parties, in the present case, the Railway. 12. In fact, the similar issue arose for consideration before a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges 17 of the Apex Court in the case of BHAGWATI PRASAD (supra), wherein it is held as herienbelow: \"Where an application is filed before a claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles and the claims is made both against the insurer, owner and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of the joint tortfeasor and not the driver of the motor vehicle the Tribunal would not loose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the joint tortfeasor. The reason being as follows:- The crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is \"the accident arising out of use of Motor Vehicle,\" and therefore, if there has been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and Railway train then all those persons injured 18 or died could make application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal not only against the owner, driver or insurer of the motor vehicle but also against the Railway Administration. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and the Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry the Tribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected with the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the motor vehicle then the Tribunal cannot be held to denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. In other words, in such a case also the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor, and in the case in hand, it would be fully justified to award compensation against the Railway Administration if ultimately it is held that it was the sole negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. To denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction on a finding that 19 the driver of the motor vehicle was not negligent, would cause undue hardship to every claimant. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of motor vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the motor vehicle in question.\" 13. It is very clear from the above judgment that there has been a collision between the motor vehicle and the railway train, then all those persons injured or the legal representatives of the deceased could make an application for compensation before the MACT not only against the owner, driver or the insurer of the motor vehicle but also against the railway 20 administration. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and the MACT entertains such an application, if in the course of enquiry the MACT gives a finding that it is the other joint tort-feasor connected with the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the motor vehicle then the MACT cannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the reference as under: In respect of the accidents involving the death or, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the accident between the motor vehicle and the train/railway administration an application under Section 166 of the MV Act is maintainable. The MACT has jurisdiction to decide the same in accordance with law. 21 In view of the above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the appeals are dismissed. The judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.1784/2004, 10569/2005 and 10570/2005 is recalled and the said appeals are restored to file. The same may be placed before the Bench having the roster for consideration and disposal. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/- "