SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Raj) 26

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.K.SHARMA
MOHANLAL - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CALCUTTA - Respondent
C. M. A. 162 Of 1984
Decided On : 01/16/1987

Advocates Appeared:
H.R.Panwar, J.P.JOSHI, M.Trivedi, P.K.BHANSALI

The Insurance Company is a necessary party in a claim under S. 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act and without impleading it as a party, no award can be passed against it.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 92A, 110A - INSURANCE COMPANY - LIABILITY - INTERIM COMPENSATION - OWNER AND INSURANCE COMPANY BOTH LIABLE FOR INTERIM COMPENSATION UNDER S. 92A - INSURANCE COMPANY IS A NECESSARY PARTY IN A CLAIM UNDER S. 92A - WITHOUT IMPLEADING IT AS A PARTY, NO AWARD CAN BE PASSED AGAINST IT.

Fact of the Case:

An accident occurred involving a truck insured with the National Insurance Company, resulting in the death of Badri Chand. The claimants filed a claim under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation and a separate claim under S. 92A for interim compensation. The Tribunal passed an award against the owner of the truck, Mohanlal, under S. 92A without impleading the Insurance Company as a party.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Insurance Company was a necessary party in the claim under S. 92A and that without impleading it as a party, no award could be passed against it. The court also held that both the owner and the Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable to pay the interim compensation under S. 92A.

Issues: Whether the Insurance Company was a necessary party in the claim under S. 92A.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Ss. 92A, 95, 96, and 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as case law, to hold that the Insurance Company was liable for the interim compensation claimed under S. 92A. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not impleading the Insurance Company as a party to the claim.

Final Decision: The court set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after impleading the Insurance Company as a party.

Judgment


G. K. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) MOHANLAL has preferred this appeal against the order of award dated 15-9-1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara against him under S. 92a, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter mentioned as the Act ).

( 2 ) AN accident took place on 27-8-1983 by truck No. RJQ 1187 near chhatris of Prithvi-vilas in Banswara in which Shri Badri Chand died. The claimants-respondents 3 to 8 filed their claim under S. 110-A of the Act for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. Along with this claim the claimants also submitted a claim petition under S. 92-A of the Act for passing an award for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the first mentioned compensation. The learned Tribunal passed a claim of Rs. 15,000/- against the appellant Mohanlal on 15-9-1984. This order has been challenged in appeal.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri P. K. Bhansali learned counsel for respondent 1 National Insurance Company to this effect that the Insurance Company was not party in the main claim under S. 92-A of the Act. Without impleading the Insurance Company a party to the claim and without giving opportunity to hear the Company no award could be passed against the Insurance Company. This Company has been made respondent in this appeal and as the Company was not a party in the original claim under S. 92-A of the Act the present appeal is not maintainable against the Company. On this preliminary objection I have heard both the learned counsel at length.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has mentioned that in the claim under S. 92-A of the Act, the appellant filed his reply. In that reply he has raised an objection that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company and this Company is a necessary party in this claim. Even after raising this plea in the reply no application was moved on behalf of the claimants to implead the National Insurance Company as party in that claim. It seems that the Court also did not give notice to the Insurance Company for impleading it a party in that claim. The result is that without disposing the objection raised by the appellant, the Tribunal passed the order which has been challenged. The impugned question to be decided is whether the National Insurance Company is a necessary party in such claim and whether without impleading it a party in the original claim can he be made liable and responsible to pay some compensation at the appellate stage.

( 5 ) SECTION 92a and S. 110a have been amended in the year 1982. Prior to this amendment Chapter VII-A of the Act was not in the Act. This Chapter was newly added by the amendment in the year 1982. This Chapter contains Ss. 92a to 92e. Under S. 92a of the Act liability to pay compensation in certain cases on principle of no fault has been provided. The intention of the legislation was that some immediate relief should be granted to the injured person. As the trial in claim cases takes time, so by amending this Act the intention was that some immediate occurs on account of accident, the owner shall pay Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants and if there is a permanent disablement on account of that accident, the owner shall pay a fixed sum of Rs. 7500/- to the injured. This was the provision for giving immediate relief to the claimant. Apart from this the claim was to be decided under S. 110a of the Act. While enacting S. 110a by the amendment an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made by the person to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred. A proviso has been added which says that where any prayer for compensation under S. 92a is made in such application the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. S. 110b is with regard to passing award by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and satisfying the person or persons to whom compensatio




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top