IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants need only prove vehicle involvement in an accident to be entitled to compensation, without establishing driver negligence.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 19-6-2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 764 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,89,000/- to the claimants towards compensation payable by the respondents 1 and 2 and exonerating the 3rd respondent/owner of the trailer and the 4th respondent/ Insurance Company, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012 is preferred by the claimants for claiming balance compensation amount as prayed in the claim application before the Tribunal for enhancement of the claim granted by the Tribunal. Whereas M.A.C.M.A. No. 3576 of 2008 is filed by the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited questioning the legality of the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. Both the parties in the appeal and review application will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. Originally, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012 was disposed of on 12-10-2023 on hearing both sides’ counsels. By the time of disposal of M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012 filed by the claimants, it is not brought to the notice of this bench by the counsels on record about the pendency of M.A.C.M.A. No. 3576 of 2008 filed by another counsel of 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company, which is pending before another bench, therefore, it was observed by this bench in its judgment in Para-15 as follows:

“15. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record and on considering Ex.B1 - policy, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents. No appeal or cross-objections are filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents against the said finding. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd respondents have to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.68,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.”

By observing the same, entire liability is fastened on the respondents 1 and 2/Insurance Company in Para-16 of its judgment in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012, which is as follows:

“16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claim of Rs.1,89,000/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,57,000/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st and 2nd claimants are entitled to withdraw the same along with interest therein. No order as to costs.”

4. Aggrieved against the above findings, the 2nd respondent filed review application vide I.A. No. 2 of 2024.

5. Another important point is that the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed the appeal vide M.A.C.M.A. No. 3576 of 2008 against the same award, whereas the claimants filed the appeal M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012 subsequently against the same award. In grounds of review petition in I.A. No. 2 of 2024, it was mentioned by the learned counsel for review petitioner in ground Nos.10 and 11 as follows:

“10. The present counsel for the Insurance Company came to know about the pendency of appeal filed by the insurance company when the counsel sent the final order copy to the insurance company then the insurance company informed about the pendency of the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 2 insurance company in MACMA No. 1054 of 2012.

11. The appellate court ought to have appreciated the fact that the party cannot be penalized for no fault of them. The appellate court by treating it as bona fide mistake of the counsels and can dispose of both appeals simultaneously by reviewing the order passed in MACMA No. 1054 of 2012.”

6. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned standing counsel for review petitioner/Insurance Company, would contend that the counsel for claimants failed to bring to the notice of this bench about the pendency of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company which was filed by another counsel against the same award vide M.V.