New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Chinta Devi and Others

Suresh Kait, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company assailing the impugned order dated 18.04.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation for a sum of Rs. 16,82,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Tribunal, which was converted into claim petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ''MV Act''). Since the case was not settled by the appellant/Insurance Company, the claim petition was accordingly contested denying the allegations raised therein.

The learned Tribunal neither framed any issue on negligence on the part of the driver/respondent No. 4 of the offending vehicle on the accident in question nor respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants preferred to lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 4. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award without framing and deciding the issue on negligence.

As per Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, once the claimants declined to accept the legal offer of the appellant, then as per sub-Section (6) of Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, the learned Tribunal was bound to conduct an inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of MV Act, and thereafter, only it could have passed an award after appreciating the evidence on record.

Moreover, in the case of Minu B. Mehta and Another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Another, , Full Bench of the Apex Court has held that it is incumbent upon the claimants to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle to hold the owner of the vehicle vicariously liable for the act of a driver and that proof of negligence remained the lynchpin to recover compensation.

The similar issue came before this Court in the case of MAC. A. No. 503/2012 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Reshnu Nisha & Ors., decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.12.2012.

Keeping in view the settled law that the Detailed Accident Report had to be inquired into; and thereafter, considered as a claim petition filed u/s 166 of the MV Act. It can be safely inferred that the learned Tribunal has acted with illegality in passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2012. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal for its decision in accordance with law. It is expected from the Tribunal to decide this case on priority basis not later than three months from today.

The parties are at liberty to lead evidence after framing of issues by the learned Tribunal.

The amount of compensation deposited shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company.

The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company.

Pending application also stands disposed of. TCR be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.