RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:

I.A. No. 4476 of 2020 in M.A. No. 226 of 2020

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1530 days in filing the instant misc. appeal.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the delay was not intentional and due to financial condition of the appellants, they could not file the appeal within the stipulated time.

3. Motor vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, and the present applicants are the claimants, therefore, considering the grounds taken in the interlocutory application, the delay is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed.

4. The appellant- National Insurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the judgment and Award of compensation dated 01.03.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, in T.M.V. Claim Case No.18 of 2013 under Section 166 of the M. V. Act by which the liability to pay the compensation amount has been fixed upon the appellant- Insurance Company.

5. It is mainly contended on behalf of the insurance company, that liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured in a Case under section 166 of the MV Act, can arise only if there is some modicum of evidence to show that accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle under its insurance cover. Unless there is negligence on the part of the driver which resulted in accident causing death or permanent disability of the third party, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation

6. On facts it is argued that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle which met with accident caused by an unidentified truck. Preponderance of evidence suggests that the accident resulted not on account of fault of driver of the Indigo car in which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident, but it was a hit and run case.

7. Accident took place as per the claim application and FIR, on 26.10.2012 at 2:00 pm when the deceased (Minaj Ansari) was going by Indigo Car bearing Registration No.JH-09T-1689 being driven by driver-Md. Sayeed Akhtar. The said vehicle was dashed by an unknown truck, as a result of which, the driver of the car lost control of it and the vehicle dashed into a road-side tree resulting in death of Minaj Ansari.

8. Apart from FIR (Ext.1), reference is made to the deposition of Claimants, CW 1 and CW 2, both of whom have deposed that the accident was the outcome of Indigo Car being dashed by an unknown truck.

9. It was for this reason that the learned Tribunal recorded a finding on issue Nos. II and III that it was not a case of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Indigo car.

10. By referring to these facts, it is argued that in absence of any evidence that the driver of the Indigo car was nowhere responsible for the accident and liability has been fastened on the insurer of this car.

11. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Arora and Ors. Vs. Manoj Bisla and Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 552 wherein it was held that it was the responsibility of the claimants to have established that Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which they have failed to do before the Tribunal, as such, the claim under Section 166 of the M. V. Act was not maintainable.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=7yg5D%2FmJmLJFbv9l4Wl3vYFNnXyWnRA8Avol5aSqFSy46OO2QoQxd3cL9JuzZEuM&caseno=MA/453/2016&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010184962016&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.