NAME-ANKUR CHAUDHARY

CLASS-BALLB SEC-B

TOPIC-CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

SUBMITTED TO PROF. ANJU






















INDEX

CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. List of cases 3
2. Introduction 4
3. Setting Up Of Claims Tribunals 5-7
(i) Claims Tribunal a substitute of civil courts 6
(ii) Claims Tribunal: Power of Civil Courts 7
4. Matters of adjudication by Claims Tribunals 8-9
(i) Accidents arising from the use of motor vehicles 9
5. Use of the vehicles in public or private place 10
(i) Accidents involving death, injury to persons or damage to property of a third party (Sec. 165)
(ii) Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases
6. Claimants have option either to proceed under section 166 or section 163-A 11
7. Bibliography 12


















LIST Of Cases

1. Shrikishan v Dayaram
2. Manoj Kumar v Gopal Hari
3. Madarsab sahebala v. Nagappa Vittappa
4. Kishori v. Chairman, Tribal services coop. Society Ltd
5. U.P State Road Transport Corpn. V. Trilok Chandra
6. Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh
















Introduction
A new forum i.e. Motor Accidents Claims tribunals which substitutes Civil Courts has
been created by the Motor vehicle Act for cheaper and speedier remedy to the victims
of accident of motor vehicles. Sections 165-175 deal with the setting up of claims
tribunals, the procedure for dealing with cases coming before the tribunals, and the
reward of compensation by them. Prior to these provisions, a suit for damages had to
be filed in a civil court on payment of ad valorem court fee
1
. Under these provisions an
application claiming compensation can be made to the Claims tribunals without
payment of ad valorem court fee. These provisions do not create new liabilities, and
the liability is still based on law of torts and enactments like the fatal accidents Act.
The object of this group of section 110 to 110-F of the Act is to supply a cheap and
speedier mode of enforcing liability arising out of claim for compensation in respect of
accident involving the death, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of use of motor
vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both as referred to
in section 110.prior to the constitution of the tribunal, compensation could be claimed
by institution of suits for damages only through the medium of the civil court on
payment of ad valorem court fee. This group of sections furnishes self contained Code
that the claims can be lodged on the basis of an application without payment of ad

1
See Swaranalata v.N.T.I. pvt. Ltd.,AIR 1974 Gauhati 31, at 34


valorem court fee. By providing a direct appeal to the court to the High Court, second
appeals are also dispensed with.
Setting of Claims Tribunals
Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the State Government to constitute
Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor
vehicle accidents, resulting in death or bodily injury to persons or damages to any
property of third parties.
A State Government may, by notification in official in the Gazette, constitute one or
more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the
notification
2
. The power of a state government to constitute Claims Tribunals is
optional, and the state government may not constitute a Claims Tribunal for certain
areas
3
. Where any claims Tribunals has been constituted for any areas, no civil Court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for
compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the claims Tribunals for that area,
and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims
Tribunals in respect of claim for compensation shall be granted by the civil court.
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 163-A4.
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.
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal
unless he is or has been a Judge of a High Court, or is or has been a District Judge or
is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge6.
Where two or more Claims Tribunal are constituted for any area, the State
Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business
among them.
VII. Claims Tribunal: A Substitute of Civil Courts for the Purpose of
Compensation Claims

To say that Claims Tribunal is a Court is entirely different from saying that a Claims
tribunal is a Civil Court. It is a civil court for all intents and purposes of adjudication
of claims for compensation in motor accident cases. From the scheme of the Motor
vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under, it is clear that a Claims tribunal is
constituted for a specific area, which is specified in the notification for adjudication of

2
Sec. 165(1), 1988 Act:[Sec 110(1) 1939 Act].
3
Minu B. Mehta v.Blkrishna, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1248, AT 1257.


such claim. The institution of the proceedings is by an application for compensation.
The tribunal disposes such application by giving the parties an opportunity of being
heard and holding an inquiry in to the claim and it has to make an award determining
the amount of compensation is to be paid and the amount which is to be paid by the
insurer. The tribunal has been given all the powers of a civil judge for the purpose of
taking evidence on oath and enforcing the attendance of witness and of compelling the
discovery and production of documents. Rules framed under the Act also confer all the
powers of a civil court on the Claims tribunal in so far as the same are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Right to appeal to the High Court is also
provided.
Resort to Article 227 of Constitution of India in preference to Revision under Section
151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Ganga Devi23it was held that as a matter of law
and practice both, where the statute has made provision for an appeal against a
judgment or order and right of appeal is absolute, additional, restricted or otherwise, a
revision against such judgment or order does not lie.
The reasoning conceding to the power of the High Court to entertain such a revision
seems to gravitate upon one or the other of the propositions not appealing to the
reason. The claims tribunal is said to have trapping of civil court, but merely because
some authority has been clothed with the trappings of a court, it cannot logically
follow that it is liable to be treated as civil court for all intents and purposes. If the
tribunal is or can be considered to be a civil court, there is no use of employing the
additive which inheres the expression trappings of court. The use of this expression is
itself indicative that the possession of some trappings of a court cannot identify an
authority with a de facto civil court24.
VI. Claims Tribunal: Powers of Civil Courts

Claims tribunal set up under this Act are deemed Civil Courts. In Mohd. Riyazur
Rehman Siddiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services20it was held that technically
grammatically speaking, tribunal may not be a civil court, but it has all the trapping of
court since it passes an award which has all the ingredients of a judgment as known under
civil jurisprudence.
In the matter of Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyamsunder Jhunjhuinwal21 the
distinction between courts and tribunal was pointed out by the Supreme Court of India as
follows:
The word court is not defined in the Companies Act, 1956. It is not defined in
the Civil Procedure Code. The definition in the Indian Evidence Act is not exhaustive,
and is for the purpose of that Act. In the New English Dictionary22 the meaning is given
is: an assembly of judges or other persons legally appointed and acting as a tribunal to
hear and determine any cause, civil, ecclesiastical, military or naval.
The Claims Tribunal shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act,
have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:




a) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on
oath;

b) The discovery and production of any document;

c) The reception of evidence on affidavits;

d) The requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record, and

e) Such other matters as may be prescribed.
















Matters of adjudication by Claims Tribunals

According to section of 165(1)(1988 Act),i.e.sec 110(1),(1939 Act), the claims Tribunals
are constituted for the purpose of adjudication upon claims for compensation:
(i)In respect of accidents arising out of use of motor vehicles, and
(ii) Involving
(a) The death of, or bodily injury to persons, or
(b) Damage to property of third party so arising, or both.
(i)Accidents arising from the use of motor vehicles
The Claims Tribunal can entertain a claim for compensation if the same arises in
respect of accidents arising out of use of motor vehicles. The Tribunals has no
jurisdiction to enforce any such claims against any other person or authority except
the owner, the driver and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident
4
,
and that being the legal position, here was no scope for the petitioners to implead the
Railway Administration in proceedings before the Claims Tribunals
5
.
According to section 2(28),Motor vehicle means any mechanically propelled
vehicle. If it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle, the Claims Tribunal has got no
jurisdiction to entertain the application. In Shrikishan v Dayaram
6
, the owner urged
a few boys to push the truck chassis, which was without ant engine, and one of the
boys fell down and was run over by the said vehicle as a consequence of which he
died. In a action by the parents of the deceased boy to claim compensation, it was held
that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim because the truck
chassis was without engine was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the defined
in section 2(18) of the (1939) Act. The claimants application was rejected on that
ground.
Injury from the use of the motor vehicle is necessary. In Manoj Kumar v
Gopal Hari
7
, two were parked on a public lane in such a negligent manner that one of
them was placed over the other in a tilting position. As the appellant, Manoj Kumar, a
minor boy of 10 years, passed by the side of these two trailers, one of these trailers
slipped, and fell down on the appellant causing him serious injuries. It was held that
the claim for compensation in this case was not maintainable before the Claims
Tribunal as the two trailers, when the accident occurred, were not in motion or being
used as motor vehicle. Vyas, J. gave the following illustration to explain the view of the

4
Sec. 110(3).
5
Swaralata v. N.I.T. Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1974 Gau. 31, at 34
6
1967 A.C.J. 104.
7
A.I.R. 1978 M.P. 29.


court: To illustrate our view, we may take the following instance. A motor vehicle
which is mechanically propelled vehicle has a complete breakdown while on the road.
In order to get it repaired, the vehicle is being carried mounted o a bullock cart and
while being so carried, it accidentally falls either because of some negligence or
because of some reason, and causes an inquiry to a person going on road.


Use of the vehicle in public or private palce

According to sec. 165(1988 Act), the claims Tribunals have jurisdiction to entertain
claims for compensation when an accident arises out of use of the motor vehicle.
Section 165, does not say that to give jurisdiction to the Claims Tribunal, the accident
must occur in a public place. Thus, the Claims Tribunals can entertain a claim even
though the accident occurred on private land. It may be noted that if an insurance
company has issued an Act policy as contemplated by section 95, it will not be liable
to indemnify the owner of the vehicle unless the accident is caused in a public place.
The insurer and the insured can, however, make the scope of the policy wider and
contemplate the insurers liability even for the accident in a private place. From the
fact that liabilities of the insurer are limited only to accidents occurring in public
places, it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal is also
restricted by referring to the decision in Madarsab sahebala v. Nagappa Vittappa
8
. In
this case, the claimants son sleeping in the field on the night of 20
th
November, 1977,
was run over by a truck and killed on the spot, at about 3:00 am on that day. It was
held that section 110(1) does not confine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal only to
accidents occurring in a public place, and hence the owner is legally bound to pay
compensation awarded by the Tribunal even for an accident in a private place. As it
was held that from the clauses in the policy did not confine the insurers liability to
accidents happening in public place as stated in section 95 and. Therefore, the insurer
was liable to indemnify the insured this case
Accidents involving death, injury to persons or damage to
property of a third party
As already noted, according to section 165, the Claims Tribunals are constituted
to adjudicate upon claims for compensation I respect of accidents involving:
(a) The death of. Or bodily injury to, persons, or
(b) Damage to any property of a third party, or both
In Kishori v. Chairman, Tribal services coop. Society Ltd.,
9
it has been held
that when the goods belonging to a consignee are destroyed while in transit in a goods
vehicle, the owner of the goods, i.e., the consignee cannot be considered to be a Third
Party and hence, the Claims Tribunal does not have a jurisdiction to entertain the
claim for damages.

8
A.I.R. 1981 Kant. 117.
9
1996 ACJ 562(M.P.) United India Ins.Co. v. K.A.R.N. janarithaname, 1988 ACJ 503(Madras) followed.


Claimants have option either to proceed under section 166 or
section 163-A.- Section 163-A providing for payment of compensation
notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being
that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in
the case of the death or the permanent disablement due to accidents arising out of the
use of the motor vehicle. Compensation , as indicated in the second schedule, to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub section(1)
of section 163-A the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death
or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to
any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned therefore,
the victim of an accident or his dependents have an option either to proceed under
section 166 or his dependents have an option either to proceed under section 166 or
under section 163- A. once, they approach the Tribunal under section 166 ,they have
necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the
driver or the owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under section 163-A,
the compensation will be awarded in terms of schedule without calling upon the victim
or his dependents to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the
vehicle.
10

In U.P State Road Transport Corpn. V. Trilok Chandra,
11
the apex
court has pointed out the shortcomings in schedule II and has held that the schedule
could only be used as a guide .It was held that the selection of multiplier could not in
all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased .If a young man was killed in
the accident leaving behind aged parents, who might not survive long enough to match
with the high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the
claimants, the court ruled.
Relying on the above observations, the apex Court in Ramesh Singh v. Satbir
Singh
12
, held in case of a minors death, age of deceased or the claimant, whichever
was higher, would be relevant. In the case, one Bhanu Pratap Singh was killed in an
accident involving a truck which was being driven by the respondent .Since the case
was a case under Section 163-a of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the provisions of the
schedule II were held applicable. The age of the deceased being 22 years and that of
the father being 55 years, selection of multiplier of 8, as adopted by the Trial Court,
was held proper by the Apex Court.


10
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Variyal and others, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1609
11
A.I.R. 2004 S.S. 2107.
12
A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1233.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


BOOKS REFERED

1. Dr. R.K. Bangia
2. D.r. N.V. Parajape
3. Vijay Kumar Pandey

WEBSITES
1. www.Lawcommissionfindia.nic.in
2. www.supemecourtofindia.nic.in
3. www.causelists.nic.in


































14 Dr.
(