United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mahendra Singh Jadawat and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since these four Misc. appeals relate to common Award dated 28th June, 2008, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, in M.A.C.T. cases Nos. 7/2004, 159/ 2004, 31/2004, 158/2004, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

Facts in brief are that on 10th October, 2003, at about 11.15 p.m. when Dilip Singh, Rajendra Singh, Shailang Thakor, Ashish Thakor were coming to Bundi in a Maruti Van No. RJ 20 C 4294 then the driver and owner of the said vehicle Sanjay Chopra hit the van to a standing truck near the Railway Pulia. On account of the said accident, Dilip Singh and Shailang Thakor died and Rajendra Singh and Ashish Thakor received grievous injuries. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the driver and owner of the said van and, therefore, they claimed heavy compensation.

The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition stating therein that the Maruti van No. RJ 20 C 4294 was insured as a private vehicle and no premium was charged for any passenger/occupant sitting in the vehicle and at the time of accident, the vehicle was used as a passenger carrying vehicle. The Insurance Company and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e., truck were not impleaded as party. The Insurance Company in the matter has issued only policy for Act liability for the Maruti van, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the M.A.C.T. has erred in not considering this aspect of the matter that the Maruti van was insured for third party by the Insurance Company and policy for Act liability only was issued. The Insurance Company has not charged any premium for the passengers/occupants sitting in the Maruti van. The owner and Insurance Company of the other vehicle i.e., truck were not made party in the claim petition despite the specific objection taken by the appellant and no finding has been given by the M.A.C.T. with regard to contributory negligence. The learned Counsel relied on the case of T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. reported in 2001 SCC 748 : 2002 (1) T.A.C. 1, and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others,

The learned Counsel for the claimants and the learned Counsel for the driver of the vehicle opposed the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and they have stated that the award passed by the M.A.C.T. is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company.

The crux of the arguments of the Insurance Company is with regard to issues 4, 5, 6, and 7. One more objection raised by the Counsel for the Insurance Company is with regard to contributory negligence. In the claim petition the owner and Insurance Company of the Truck were not impleaded as parties to the claim petition.

In relation to issues 4, 5, and 6 the M.A.C.T. observed as under :

After considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the material produced by the parties, the MACT came to the conclusion that the persons who travelled in the Maruti van have not paid any fare and they were travelling as friend, the vehicle owner paid the premium, and on following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. The owner and Insurance Company of the truck standing were rightly not made parties to the claim petition as the truck was standing. There cannot be any question of contributory negligence on the part of the truck. The cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of these cases. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. The findings on issues 4, 5 and 6 arrived at by the M.A.C.T. deserve to be confirmed.

In relation to issue No. 7 the Insurance Company has not been able to prove that the persons travelling in the van were in drunken state. This issue was rightly decided in favor of the claimants.

In view of the above the Misc. Appeals Nos. 4052, 4053, 4054 and 3911 of 2008 filed by appellant Insurance Company against the Award dated 28th June, 2008, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, Jaipur (sic.) in M.A.C.T. cases Nos. 7/2004, 159/2004, 31/2004, 158/2004 being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.