Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that offering of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be a ground to dislodge a claim for death under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan disapproved the reasons assigned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting a woman’s compensation claim for her son’s death. The deceased, a Punjab Police constable, lost his life in a road accident while on duty.

The court used its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to give a lump sum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the woman, whose second son, appointed on compassionate grounds, also passed away in 2006.

Balwinder Kaur, the appellant was a widow and about 80 years old. Her son, Gurinderjit Singh, was a Constable in the Punjab Police. He was traveling in a police vehicle while on duty. The vehicle hit a tree and as a result of the accident, Gurinderjit Singh sustained fatal injuries leading to his death. The accident occurred on the intervening night of October 26, 1992. The deceased was unmarried.

In terms of the prevailing government policy, his younger brother was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Constable in the police department under the ex gratia scheme. Some other monetary benefits were also given.

The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but she withdrew it in January 1996. She again filed a fresh claim petition on February 09, 2000.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the second petition as barred by time. The appellant then approached the High Court, but her first appeal was turned down by the impugned order reiterating that dead and stale claims could not be entertained at a belated stage.

Taking up her challenge to the High Court's order, the top court said, "Ordinarily, keeping in view the factor that the second son of the appellant was employed as a Constable under the ex gratia scheme or some terminal benefits were paid to the family, we would have declined to interfere with the impugned orders."

However, the court noted, that what could not be unfortunately brought on record before the High Court was that the appellant lost her second son in 2006.

"She was left with no bread-earner and no family pension was paid to her. There is nothing to suggest that on the untimely demise of her second son, any financial aid or assistance was provided to the appellant," the bench said.

The court also said that there was an arguable case on the question of the second claim petition filed by the appellant being time-barred.

"Though we are not giving any final opinion to create a precedent for any other case, what seems to us is that sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act was introduced in a new avatar vide Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019, whereunder a claim petition can be filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident.Prior thereto, sub-section (3) was omitted by way of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. It seems that earlier thereto there was no time limit for filing claim petition, as held by this Court in Dhannalal vs. D.P.Vijayvargiya, (1996)," the bench said.

The bench pointed out that it further appeared that before November 14, 1994, there used to be a time limit for filing the claim petitions but then the High Court of Gujarat had taken the view in Mer Ramdas Bejanand Bhai vs. Harshad Bhai Mala Bhai, (1992), that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable in the case of an application for compensation filed before a claims Tribunal.

The court, however, felt the fact that the appellant lost her young son; she was a widow; she had no source of livelihood; and she belonged to a remote area of Punjab etc, were several amongst the factors which ex facia constituted a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, that would have occurred had the appellant filed a claim petition prior to 1994.

"These are all arguable issues. All that we have observed is that the Courts ought to have looked into these facts and then determined whether the appellant made out a case for condonation of delay before 1994 and if she was able to explain the delay between 1992 to 1994, could her claim petition be dismissed for want of limitation when the Legislature removed the impediment of limitation for filing claim petition before the Tribunal w.e.f. 14.11.1994," the bench opined.

Having held so, the bench said, the question that fell for its consideration was whether it should remit the case to the claims Tribunal to decide the issues afresh.

The court noted that the State counsel vehemently opposed the observations made in support of the appellant’s plea to condone the delay and/or entertain her claim petition on merits.

"We do not find any substance in those objections. Keeping in mind the age of the appellant, it seems that remitting the case to the claims Tribunal will lead to a fresh ordeal of the appellant, who is already 80 years old," the bench, however, said.

Pondering over the legitimate recourse that could be followed by the court, the bench said, "It is a fit case to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, with a view to do complete justice between the parties. It seems to us that the ends of justice would be adequately met by directing the State of Punjab to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to the appellant within a period of 60 days."

The court said the appellant would then have no claim whatsoever under the Motor Vehicles Act and/or under service jurisprudence, except that whatever had already been granted to her would continue to operate.

The bench, however, held the High Court fell in error that the appellant raised a dead claim or that she had been adequately compensated by offering a job to the second son.

As noticed earlier, the second son unfortunately died in 2006 and there is no material on record to show that any specific monetary benefit was granted to the appellant, it highlighted.

"Similarly, the appellant’s claim, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, which is essentially meant for her sustenance would apparently give a recurring cause of action and it cannot be termed as a dead claim. Further, offering of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be a ground to dislodge a claim for death under the Motor Vehicles Act," the bench said.

The court thus allowed the appeal against the High Court's order of November 3, 2017.

Case Title: Balwinder Kaur Vs Punjab State Through Its Secretary & Anr