IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the insurance company is liable for compensation when the driver, even if related to the owner, was covered under the policy, emphasizing the principle of just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and award dated 02.05.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux). Gandhidham-Kutch in MACP No.266/05, whereby, a sum of Rs.16,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment is awarded to the present respondents Nos.1 to 3 (original applicants) as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the present appellant is held jointly and severally liable for payment of the 50% said sum, the present appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 15/6/2005 while deceased Batuksinh was proceeding in Maruti Zen Car from Mandvi to Kotda Nayani at while she reached near Amarnagar and Bharatgam situated in the middle of the Morbi-Kandla National High Way one truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-T-8681 was parked in the middle of the road without signal or indicator and in violation of the road regulation. Therefore, deceased who could not notice the parked truck dashed with the said truck and ultimately succumbed to the death. FIR being CR No.89 of 2005 came to be registered before the Morbi Taluka Police Station.

2.1 The heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% and the tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has passed the judgment and award as referred in paragraph 1 of this judgment which has given rise to this appeal at the behest of the insurance company.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Leaned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for Ms.Raol, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly the order of fastening the liability of the appellant to pay compensation of the negligence of the deceased who was driver of the Maruti Car on the ground that tribunal assessed the negligence of the Maruti Car driver and driver of the truck i.e. two errant vehicles are involved in the road accident in equal proportion yet, the insurance company of the Maruti Car has been held liable to pay the compensation to the extent of the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car being deceased. He would further submit that in the present case deceased after borrowing car from his brother was riding it on unfortunate day and when he reached near Amarnagar-Bharatgam the truck was parked in the middle of the road without keeping any signal or indicator and deceased ran Maruti Car on the truck from behind and received the fatal injuries. He would further submit that tribunal after assessing the situation of the road accident came to the conclusion that driver of the truck and Maruti Car are equally negligent in causing the road accident and after recording the same the tribunal fastened the liability upon the appellant insurance company who is insurer of the Maruti Car and thereby committed gross error in paying the compensation equal to the negligence of the Maruti Car driver i.e. deceased. He would further submit that car was owned by real brother of the deceased and as such he was stepping into the shoes of the owner. It is further submitted that since the deceased was stepping into the shoes of the owner, he cannot be treated as third party and cannot get the compensation from the insurance company of the Maruti Car viz-a-viz insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation to legal representative of the person who stepped in shoes of the owner.

4.1 Leaned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for the appellant – insurance company would submit that since deceased was serving as PI in Police Department at relevant point of time it is clear that he is not paid driver of owner of the car and therefore even on that ground the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would submit that