Purni Devi and Others vs Balwinder Singh and Others

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by the claimants against the award dated 22.09.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sonepat.

The claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs on account of death of Rattan Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as cleaner on truck bearing No. PBP-8101 and was drawing salary of Rs. 575/- per month. It is further alleged that on the intervening night of 29/30.07.1987, Rattan Singh-deceased was going from Chandigarh to Delhi carrying gold spot and thums up bottles of bottling company, Chandigarh. The truck was being driven by Jaspal Singh and one Mohinder Singh of village Karala Tehsil Rajpura was also travelling on the truck. When the truck reached in between Bahalgarh and Murthal Chowk on G.T. Road, air pressure in the rear wheel of the truck felt less than the normal. The deceased alighted from the truck and was standing behind the truck. The hind light of the truck was on. When the deceased was checking the rear wheel of the truck, one Gypsy bearing No. DID-7726 being driven by Mohinder Singh came from the side of Panipat, being driven rashly and negligently and at a very high speed. The driver of the gypsy lost control over the vehicle and the same dashed against the deceased. The deceased was crushed in between the truck and the gypsy and resultantly, he died at the spot.

Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte.

The claim petition was resisted by respondent No. 2on the allegations that he has been wrongly pleaded and has no concern with the gypsy. The alleged occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck.

Respondent No. 3 filed written statement and resisted the claim petition on the grounds of maintainability; non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was not insured with the Insurance Company; there was no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the other respondents.

The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

Whether Rattan Singh died as a result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question by its driver, as alleged ? OPP

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP

Relief.

The learned Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. While deciding Issue No. 2, it was held that the claimant has failed to prove the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with New India Assurance Company and consequently, respondent No. 1 alone was held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 76,800/-.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the present appeal has been preferred.

During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying G.S.Lamba s/o A.S.Lamba r/o AC/40, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, was moved. Another application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producing Insurance Cover was also moved. The Insurance Company was asked to file an affidavit whether the Insurance Policy produced by the claimant was issued by the Insurance Company ? In reply to that, Insurance Company has filed an affidavit of K.B.Bindal, Manager, New India Assurance Company, in which it is mentioned that since the record relates to the year 1987-88 and as such, the same is not available. So, the Insurance Company is unable to admit or deny the copy of cover note.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants are rustic villagers and were not in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Now they have approached the Insurance Company from where they came to know that G.S.Lamba was the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and the vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Company from 25.08.1987 to 24.08.2008, as per cover note. It is contended that copy of the same is already on the lower Court file as Annexure A-1, but the Tribunal has not looked into that also. So, the prayer has been made to array G.S.Lamba as respondent.

The prayer has been opposed by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.

I have heard both the sides carefully and have gone through the records of the case.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation enacted with a view to provide speedy remedy to the road accident victims. Copy of the Insurance Policy is on the file of Tribunal as Annexure A-1, in which G.S.Lamba has been shown as the owner and the same was stated to have been insured. So, I am of the considered view that G.S.Lamba s/o A.S.Lamba should be arrayed as respondent. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands accepted and G.S.Lamba is ordered to be arrayed as respondent. The net consequences of arraying G.S.Lamba will be that the award stands set aside as G.S.Lamba-owner of the offending vehicle is a necessary party. Consequently, the appeal stands accepted, the award stands set aside and the case stands remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision, after arraying G.S.Lamba as respondent. The accident relates to the year 1987, so in these circumstances, the Tribunal shall decide the case expeditiously, preferably within four months from the summoning of G.S.Lamba and other parties.

The parties present here are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.05.2010.

The appeal stands disposed of.