National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinod and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—All the aforesaid thirteen appeals have been filed against the judgments and awards dt. 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 and 16.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota respectively, since they are related to one accident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.5.2003 at about 12.30 PM, Shyam Lal, Bhanwri, Prahlad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Vinod, Mangi Lal, Radhey Shyam, Kannu, Shambhu Dayal, Dhanraj, Kalu Lal and others were going in Jeep No. RJ 34-P--0176 from Kota to Jhalawar. In the afternoon at about 2.00 PM, near village Padampura, Truck No. M.P.-09-KB--7198 being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed, hit the jeep. One Maruti Zen No. RJ. 20-C-6229, which was plying behind the Jeep also caused the accident due to rash, negligent and excessive driving of the Maruti Car. In the aforesaid accident, Shyam Lal, Bhanwari Bai, Prahalad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Kannu, Dhanraj Kalu and Vinod died and others sustained injuries.

Following claim Petitions were filed:

i) Claim Petition No. 485/2003 for the death of Shyam Lal

ii) Claim Petition No. 483/2003 for the injuries sustained by Vinod

iii) Claim Petition 484/2003 for the death of Prahlad

iv) Claim Petition No. 486/2003 for the death of Bhanwari Bai.

v) Claim Petition, No. 487/2003 for the death of Savitri

vi) Claim Petition No. 488/2003 for the death of Bhoora @ Bhuriya

vii) Claim Petition No. 489/2003 for the death of Maina W/o Prahlad

viii) Claim Petition No. 550/2003 for the death of Kannu

ix) Claim Petition No. 567/2003 for the injuries sustained by Shambhu Dayal

x) Claim Petition No. 568/2003 for the injuries sustained by Mangi Lal

xi) Claim Petition No. 569/2003 for the injuries sustained by Radhey Shyam

xii) Claim Petition No. 69/2004 for the death of Dhanraj

xiii) Claim Petition No. 97/2004 for the death of Kalu Lal @ Kalu Ram

xiv) Claim Petition No. 235/2003 for the injuries sustained by Asif Beg

xv) Claim Petition No. 167/2004 for the injuries sustained by Kanwar Lal

xvi) Claim Petition No. 11/2004 for the death of Deepak

Thereafter the notices were issued to the respondents including the united India Insurance Company Limited, reply was filed, issues were framed, evidence-oral as well as documentary was submitted by both the sides and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed different amounts in different claim petitions on different dates, as mentioned here-in-above. Against the impugned judgments and awards, the aforesaid thirteen appeals nave been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd.

Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd. Mr. R.P. Vijay has contended that the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned here-in-above is illegal, ureasonable and contrary to the law. He has further contended that while deciding the aforesaid claim petitions, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record while deciding the issue pertaining to negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles, as such the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the car hit the Jeep and then crossed, similarly the Jeep hit at the side of wheel of truck and moved forwardly as such the truck fell down over the jeep. As such the truck driver cannot be said to be negligent and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car and Jeep driver, hence the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the statement of witnesses cannot be relied as they were sitting in over-loaded jeep at its middle or back seat. He has further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and while passing the impugned awards, the learned Tribunals have not considered this fact and the arguments which have been advanced by him. He has further contended that there is a contributory negligence of the driver of Jeep and Car along with truck driver. The learned Tribunals have not considered the fact of contributory negligence at the time of passing the award, hence, the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the entire liability should be shifted upon the State Government on the ground that I the officers of the concerned Department of the State Government permit such type of vehicles to ply on the road taking the passengers from one place to another place in rash manner, contrary to the provisions of law.

Learned counsel Mr. R.P. Vijay has further contended that the liability to pay the whole amount of compensation should be transferred upon the State Government so that these types of happenings should not be continued in future also. Learned counsel has further contended that the officers of the State Government do not check those vehicles. If they had checked the vehicles properly and in right manner, then these types of occurrence or happenings could be stopped.

On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and learned counsel for the claimants-respondents have contended that the Tribunals have rightly passed the judgments and awards dt. 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 and 16.11.2006, hence no interference is required. It is the negligence of the truck driver, who was driving the vehicle and hit the jeep, on account of which 10 persons died and six persons received injuries. He has further contended that the Tribunal has framed the issues after receiving the reply from the respondents and after recording the evidence upon the issues and after due appreciation, the Tribunals have passed the impugned judgment and award, hence this Court should not interfere in the impugned judgment and award.

Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari has further contended that there is no question of contributory negligence, hence the United India Insurance Company Ltd. should not be held liable.

Other advocates appearing on behalf of the claimants respondents have also opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. R.P. Vijay appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and contended that the impugned judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal should not be interfered by this Court because the judgments and awards are just and proper.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunals. The judgments and awards dt. 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006, 16.11.2006 have been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota respectively after due appreciation of evidence and after hearing the parties and detailed judgments have been passed. The insurance company has assailed the award only regarding the negligence of the truck driver. In these circumstances it is appropriate to look into the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence in the common award of the MACT Kota in claim case No. 485 of 2003 and other claim cases observed as under:

I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issues 1 and 2 which are under challenge in this appeal since the insurance company is not assailing the findings on other issues and thus the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunal are found to be just and apposite and they do not suffer from any legal flaw.

For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid thirteen appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly and the impugned judgments and awards dt. 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006, 16.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota are hereby confirmed.

Mr. R.P. Vijay, learned counsel has raised the argument at the time of dictating the judgment that the liability should be shifted upon the shoulder of the State Government on the ground that employees of the concerned Department of the State Government do not check such types of vehicles and they are plying the vehicles without following the provisions of the M.V. Act. He has further contended that the people do not travel in the Government vehicle while the Government vehicles are available. They, by hook or crook, occupy the seat in the Jeep. He has further contended that near about 22 passengers were traveling in the Jeep, which is beyond the its capacity.

This suggestion or argument is supported by all the Advocates of this side and that side, who are appearing in this matter. I have also questioned Mr. Tripurari Sharma, Ms. Chitra Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Jain and other Advocates of the Insurance company and they also supported this argument advanced by Mr. R.P. Vijay. Hence, liberty is granted to all the Insurance Companies to file a writ petition (PIL) before this Court regarding the aforesaid relief, which has been pointed out by Mr. R.P. Vijay and supported by all the Advocates appearing on behalf of the Insurance company.