No Restriction On Filing Motor Accident Claim Petition On Account Of Death Of Person Travelling On His Own Will By Taking Lift In Vehicle: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act) against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in a Claim Petition preferred by the claimants/respondents.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held, “A person can relinquish his personal claim, but not the claim of other family members or dependents by swearing an affidavit or giving undertaking. No provision under the MV Act creates restriction on filing the Claim Petition for compensation by the dependents on account of death of a person in motor accident, where he would be traveling on his own will by taking a lift in the vehicle. Therefore, findings returned by the MACT in this regard do not suffer any perversity or illegality and are not required to be interfered with.”

Deputy Solicitor General of India Balram Sharma represented the Appellant while Advocate Vikas Rathore represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The deceased, serving as a Chowkidar in the IPH Department Kelong, District Lauhal and Spiti, took a lift in a Tanker of the respondents which rolled down in a Nallah, causing multiple injuries to the whole body of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to his injuries, and an FIR came to be registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC against the respondent driver.

The wife and children (claimants) of the deceased preferred a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the MV Act for awarding compensation, amounting to Rs 20 lakh for the death of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver. The MACT held that the death of the deceased was caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver. The claimants were held entitled to receive compensation of Rs 13,77,000 to be paid by the appellants.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the admitted fact that the deceased was serving as Chowkidar in the IPH Department and was earning Rs 6400 per month, and at the time of death, his age was 36 years. The occurrence of the accident was also not disputed, and the relation of the claimants stood established.

The Bench noted that the respondents had placed reliance on an affidavit/undertaking sworn by the deceased, stating therein that he had taken a lift in the vehicle of the respondents at his own and had received injuries on account of the accident of the said vehicle. As per the respondents, it was stated by the deceased that he or his family members would not claim any compensation in future from the GREF.

The Bench found that the said affidavit had not been proved on record in accordance with law, despite the claim of the respondents that it was sworn before the SDO (Civil) Kelong. The Bench also took note of the fact that no evidence, either oral or documentary, was placed on record to prove the affidavit and/or its contents. The original of the affidavit had also not seen the light of the day.

“Though for want of proving the affidavit/undertaking on record, in accordance with law, the said undertaking/affidavit relied upon by the respondents is of no help to them, however, even if it is taken into consideration, then also deceased Halku Ram could have given undertaking with respect to his personal claim only and undertaking given by him on behalf of his family members/dependents with respect to their right to claim compensation on account of his death is neither valid nor sustainable”, the Bench said.

The Bench further held, “Rule 233(2) of the H.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999 provides that provisions of Order 41 Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, so far as may be, apply to the appeals filed under the Act.” The Bench reiterated the view that MACT or Appellate Court(s) is/are within its/their jurisdiction to enhance the compensation without the prayer being made for the same.

Modifying the award of the MACT, the Bench awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs 14,86,000 to the claimants.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Kiran Bala (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:36090)

Appearance

Appellant: Deputy Solicitor General of India Balram Sharma, Advocate Rajiv Sharma

Respondent: Advocate Vikas Rathore

Click here to read/download Order