Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.07.2023
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD INSURER ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yasharth Kant, Mr.M.R.Singh, Advs.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application seeking condonation of 7 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is allowed. MAC.APP. 338/2023
4. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 17.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No.483/2019 titled as Ms.Savitri & Ors. v. Sh. Ramu & Ors.
5. The limited grievance of the appellant to the Impugned Award is that the deceased Babu Ram was driving, what is colloquially known as a ‘Jugad’ vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that such a vehicle was not registered with the Transport Authority nor was it shown that the deceased had a driving licence for the same. He submits that these vehicles are a nuisance on the road, as observed by the Supreme Court in Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Santosh and Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 94. He submits that, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not attributing any Contributory Negligence to the deceased while awarding compensation.
6. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. While it is true that ‘Jugad’ vehicles can be a nuisance and sometimes are driven in a rash and negligent manner, the same can also be a case with a properly licenced vehicle and with a driver otherwise having a valid driving licence. It, therefore, has to be determined on a case-to-case basis whether the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the person plying such a ‘Jugad’ vehicle or not. If it is proved that the accident had occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, merely because the deceased/injured was driving a ‘Jugad’ vehicle, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of such ‘Jugad’ vehicle only on account of him/her driving a ‘Jugad’ vehicle.
8. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has also rejected the submission of the appellant on this account, observing as under:
9. I am in agreement with the observation of the learned Tribunal.
10. In fact, even in Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court had, while determining the larger issue of the coverage of ‘Jugad’ vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dismissed the appeal wherein complete liability of providing compensation had been fastened on the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation while unfastening the liability of the driver and the owner of the ‘Jugad’ vehicle.
11. I, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 20, 2023 RN/ss