Point of Law: Motor Accident - Payment of Compensation - A claimant can choose to sue and recover compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from owner/insurer of any or all of vehicles involved in accident.

JUDGMENT :

[1.] Heard Mr. Zochh uana, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

[2.] This appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 33/2018, by which the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 25.07.2018 till final payment.

[3.] The appellant’s counsel submits that the daughter of the respondent/claimant was a pillion rider in a Scooty bearing No. MZ01-N-7328 driven by one Mr. Lalhmangaihzuala. When the Scooty tried to overtake a Truck bearing No. NL01-Q-9257, the daughter of the respondent/claimant fell off the Scooty and was crushed by the right rear wheel of the Truck. The accident occurred on 27.05.2018 at around 4:20 P.M. and as a result of the accident, the deceased died on the way to the hospital.

[4.] The respondent/claimant thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, herein after referred to as “the Act”.

[5.] The appellant/Insurance Company submitted their written statement stating that they were not liable in respect of any claim made by the respondent/claimant and further stated, amongst other things, that the Police report did not mention the availability of the Driving License of the driver/rider of the Scooty.

[6.] The learned Tribunal framed 2 (two) issues, which are as follows:-

“i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style?

ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay?”

[7.] The respondent/claimant gave her evidence before the learned Tribunal and Mr. K.M. Sharma, the Branch Manager of the appellant/Insurance Company also adduced evidence on behalf of the appellant.

[8.] The learned Tribunal thereafter came to a finding that the claim petition was maintainable and that the respondent/claimant was entitled to payment of compensation.

[9.] The appellant/Insurance Company made a plea before the learned Tribunal that the liability for payment of compensation must be shared by the appellant alongwith the driver/owner of the Scooty @ 50%.

[10.] The learned Tribunal, after going through the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. The United India Insurance reported in AIR 2020 SC 527, (2020) 2 SCC 550, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710 and in the case of Shivaji and Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018(3) TAC 673 SC, held that the claimant was entitled to make a claim against both the owners or either of the owners of the involved vehicles.

[11.] The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred, in fastening the liability for payment of compensation, only upon the owner of the Truck, as 2 (two) vehicles were involved in the accident. As such, the liability for payment of the compensation would have to be apportioned equally upon both the vehicles’ owners @ 50%.

[12.] Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that a claim petition could be filed against either of the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident, even though more than 1 (one) vehicle was involved in the accident. He thus submits that there is no infirmity with the learned Tribunal fastening the liability for payment of the entire compensation amount upon the appellant/Insurance Company which had insured the Truck. He also submits that the owner/rider of the Scooty were not required to be made parties in the claim petition and neither did the appellant/Insurance Company make any application for impleadment of the sai