Ramavatar & Ors. vs Yusuf & Ors.

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the High Court, by which the High Court set aside the award dated 17.02.2006 allowing the claim petition.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 24.10.2002, around 7 pm Prahlad Ram was going to his residence on his scooter having Registration No. RJV 5948 when a speeding TATA 407 being driven negligently came and struck his scooter. Prahlad Ram fell down and suffered many injuries and was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead on the night of 24.10.2002.

The driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot where the accident took place abandoning the vehicle with which the accident took place. The vehicle was not having any number on it and as a result it was difficult to ascertain the number of the offending vehicle thus, in the FIR registered after the accident the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned as RJ 18G 0404, and the same was mentioned in the FIR based upon the information obtained from people nearby.

On 25.10.2002, the Police seized the offending vehicle lying at the accident site. The Police prepared the seizure report wherein it was mentioned that vehicle was not having any number and the engine number of the vehicle was not clear. However, the Chassis number was found near tool box and the same was matched with Registration Certificate (RC) of the offending vehicle, also the Chassis number was sent to the District Transport Officer and it came out that the number of the offending vehicle was RJ 18G 0502 and the same was on the name of one Mr. Murlidhar.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues:

Whether Prahlad Ram died because of the accident dated 24.10.02 done by the negligent driving of Respondent No.1 Yusuf the driver of the vehicle in question with Registration No. RJ 18G 0502?

Whether the vehicle driver at that time being in the employment of respondent No.2 was working under the directions of the vehicle owner Murlidhar?

Whether Respondent NO. 3 the Insurance Company can discharge its responsibility / liability completely by their mere written submission, otherwise what is it's effect?

Whether the appellants can get the amount so mentioned or any other amount in the claim. If yes, which appellant will get what amount from which respondent and what is the procedure for that?

Relief.

Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the claimants.

With regard to Issue No. 3, the High Court held that the Insurance Company will firstly pay the amount and afterwards will get the amount reimbursed. In Issue No.4, the following relief was granted by the Tribunal:

"The petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- from the respondents in instalments, out of which the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has already been received by them will be adjusted herein and they will now receive an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-.

The respondent will present the "only account payee" cheque or draft drawn in the favour of this Court of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this Court within a period of two months. The petitioners, from the date of filing the application of case i.e. dated 21.01.2003 till the date of amount received, will be entitled to receive from the respondents, interest at 6% per annum calculated Simple Interest, and after that at the rate of 9% per annum calculated simple interest.

The payment made by the insurance company respondent number 3, will be entitled to get the amount reimbursed from respondent no.1 and 2.

The claim of the applicant for the remaining amount is denied."

The driver and owner of the vehicle filed an appeal, a cross objection was filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court. The High Court considered and decided issue No.1 against the claimants. In view of the decision of the High Court on issue No.1, the award dated 17.02.2006 was set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the claimants have come up in this appeal. When FIR was lodged, the number of offending vehicle was mentioned as RJ 18G 0404 while in the claim petition, the number of offending vehicle was mentioned as RJ 18G 0502.

The vehicle was seized by the police from the accident site in which no registration number was found. After noting down the chassis number, the vehicle number was confirmed by Registering Authority as RJ 18G 0502. The High Court in its judgment has held that in FIR the number of vehicle was different and in the complaint filed by AW 3 the number was mentioned as 18G 0704, the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the claim petition. We have considered the submissions of parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has considered the sequence of events and evidence of witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion that from chassis, number of the vehicle, the vehicle number was found from registration office as RJ 18G 0502. There was no error committed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim against the said vehicle which was insured. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court without any sufficient ground has set aside the award.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Issue No.3 was decided in favour of Insurance Company which has not been addressed by the High Court.

In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the appeal before the High Court to consider issue No.3. We make it clear that in so far as the claimant's claim is concerned, the said issue shall not be re-opened before the High Court. The issue between the Insurance Company and the owners with regard to issue No.3 shall be considered and decided.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.