G.M.N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati Vs. Jitendra Shah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: (With I.A. 1 for C/delay in filing SLP)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC 7290) /1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18/11/1998 in MA 67/90 of the High Court of Guwahati)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC 7290) /1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18/11/1998 in MA 67/90 of the High Court of Guwahati)
Petitioner: G.M.N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati
Respondent: Jitendra Shah & Ors.
Apeal: (With I.A. 1 for C/delay in filing SLP)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC 7290) /1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18/11/1998 in MA 67/90 of the High Court of Guwahati)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC 7290) /1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18/11/1998 in MA 67/90 of the High Court of Guwahati)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, A.S.G., Ms. Smita Inna, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES LAW
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Appeal against compensation awarded by Accidents claims Tribunal – Special Leave – Refusal of – Railway accident at manned level crossing whereby bus hit by running train – Accidents claims Tribunal awarding compensation to victims – High Court holding that Railways was solely responsible – SLP. Held question need not be gone into as it was settled that Accidents claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction if the accident was solely attributable to the negligence of Railways. Victims having been awarded compensa-tion it was not proper to disposses of the fruits solely on the ground that they should have approached a different forum for getting relief.
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others JT 1997 (8) SC 653
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The only question mooted by the petitioner, General Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati is regarding jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in awarding compensation to the victims of accident caused solely due to the negligence of the Railways. In the present case, the High Court found that peti-tioner – Railways is solely responsible for the accident as it happened on a manned level crossing which was not closed when the bus crossed the same, and the bus was hit by a running train.
3. We do not think that this is a fit case for granting special leave for two reasons. First is that the question of law need not be gone into by us as the same has been settled by this Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others JT 1997 (8) SC 653 = (1997) 8 SCC 683 wherein a two Judge Bench of this Court declared the law to the effect that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction if the accident is solely attributable to the negligence of the Railway and observed :
“47. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by way of obiter and the views of the Guwahati, Orissa and Madras High Courts are not correct and that the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts is the correct view. Further as pointed by the Gujarat High Court, claims where it is alleged that the driver/owner of the motor vehicle is solely responsible for the accident, claims on the basis of the composite negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle as well as driver or owner of any other vehicle or of any other outside agency would be main-tainable before the Tribunal but in the latter type of cases, if it is ultimately found that there is no vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agencies, then on that finding, the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the case would then become one of the exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the accident has arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainable before the Tribunal.”
4. Second reason is that, the victims of this accident are enti-tled to compensation from the Railways at any rate, and compensa-tion has been awarded to them and we are not disposed to disenti-tle them of the fruits of the award passed solely on the ground that they should have approached a different venue altogether. This is not a case which calls for a Special Leave to be granted in the aforesaid circumstances.
5. We dispose of this S.L.P. with the above observations.
Court Master.
1. Delay condoned.
2. The only question mooted by the petitioner, General Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati is regarding jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in awarding compensation to the victims of accident caused solely due to the negligence of the Railways. In the present case, the High Court found that peti-tioner – Railways is solely responsible for the accident as it happened on a manned level crossing which was not closed when the bus crossed the same, and the bus was hit by a running train.
3. We do not think that this is a fit case for granting special leave for two reasons. First is that the question of law need not be gone into by us as the same has been settled by this Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others JT 1997 (8) SC 653 = (1997) 8 SCC 683 wherein a two Judge Bench of this Court declared the law to the effect that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction if the accident is solely attributable to the negligence of the Railway and observed :
“47. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by way of obiter and the views of the Guwahati, Orissa and Madras High Courts are not correct and that the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts is the correct view. Further as pointed by the Gujarat High Court, claims where it is alleged that the driver/owner of the motor vehicle is solely responsible for the accident, claims on the basis of the composite negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle as well as driver or owner of any other vehicle or of any other outside agency would be main-tainable before the Tribunal but in the latter type of cases, if it is ultimately found that there is no vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agencies, then on that finding, the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the case would then become one of the exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the accident has arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainable before the Tribunal.”
4. Second reason is that, the victims of this accident are enti-tled to compensation from the Railways at any rate, and compensa-tion has been awarded to them and we are not disposed to disenti-tle them of the fruits of the award passed solely on the ground that they should have approached a different venue altogether. This is not a case which calls for a Special Leave to be granted in the aforesaid circumstances.
5. We dispose of this S.L.P. with the above observations.
Court Master.
