9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Liability of minors in a proceeding before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. Liability of the Union of India or respondents 1 to 3 for the accident. Compensation payable to the appellants. Analysis: 1. Liability of Minors: The judgment addresses the issue of the liability of minors in a proceeding before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. The court determines that the principles of natural justice and equity necessitate the application of Order 32, Rule 7 to protect the interests of minors, even though the specific rule is not mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act or its rules. Citing precedents, the court emphasizes that any compromise or agreement made on behalf of minors without the express permission of the court is void as against the minors. The judgment concludes that the compromises made in this case without court permission are void as against the minors and cannot be adhered to. The court holds that the interests of minors were not adequately safeguarded in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, rendering the tribunal's decisions flawed. 2. Liability for the Accident: The judgment also delves into the liability of the Union of India or respondents 1 to 3 for the accident. The court considers witness statements to determine the party at fault. The court notes that the tanker involved in the accident was on the wrong side of the road, indicating negligence on the part of the tanker driver. Witness statements reveal discrepancies regarding the condition of the tanker's brakes, with one witness supporting the driver. Ultimately, the court finds that the fault lies with the tanker driver, making respondents 1 to 3 liable for the compensation. The Union of India is absolved of liability in this context. The judgment upholds the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding the liability of respondents 1 to 3 and sets aside any liability on the Union of India. 3. Compensation Payable: Regarding the compensation payable to the appellants, the judgment highlights that the Claims Tribunal did not determine this aspect due to relying on void compromises. The court directs that the case be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for reassessment of the compensation payable to the appellants. While the compensation amount needs to be determined afresh, the liability for payment is affirmed to rest solely with respondents 1 to 3. The court allows the appeals, sets aside the decision of the Claims Tribunal, and instructs the Tribunal to ascertain the compensation amount payable by respondents 1 to 3 to the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of liability of minors, liability for the accident, and compensation payable in a thorough and detailed manner, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and equitable considerations in legal proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
|
