Back
2011 Supreme(All) 637
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
B.S.Verma, J.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Nazima and another -Respondent
A.O. No. 667 of 2006 with A.O. No. 614 of 2006
Decided On : 5-3-2011
The legal heirs of the owner/driver must be made party to the petition for the recovery of compensation, and the seizure of the motorcycle is not sustainable without their impleadment.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation Claim - MACT No. 70 of 2005 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146, 149, 166, 168 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company, validity of registration and insurance cover, and the right of recovery of compensation from legal heirs. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the judgment and award and remit the matter for impleading the legal heirs of the owner/driver.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motorcycle accident due to the negligent driving of the owner/driver. The claimants filed a compensation claim against the insurance company. The tribunal partly decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- as compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for recovery of compensation from the legal heirs of the owner/driver and the seizure of the motorcycle was not sustainable as the legal heirs were not made party to the petition. The judgment and award were set aside, and the matter was remitted for impleading the legal heirs.
Issues: Validity of recovery order against legal heirs, sustainability of seizure of motorcycle, impleading legal heirs as respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery order against legal heirs and the seizure of the motorcycle were not sustainable as the legal heirs were not made party to the petition, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and award.
Final Decision: The judgment and award were set aside, and the matter was remitted for impleading the legal heirs of the owner/driver as respondents in the claim petition and deciding the claim petition afresh.
Since both these appeals arise out against the judgment and award dated 26-07-2006, passed Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge Chamoli in MACT No. 70 of 2005, Smt. Nazima and another Vs. United India Insurance Company, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 13.3.2004 deceased Arshad was going Karanprayag from Gauchar sitting as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration No. U.A.-11-0303, belonging to his friend Vinod Rawat. When at about 4.15 P.M. they reached near Panch Pulia ( khadiyakhand), the motorcycle met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of its owner/driver Vinod Rawat and the vehicle fell in a deep ditch, due to which Arshad died at the spot. According to claimants at the time of accident the deceased Arshad was aged about 20 years and he was earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month from shop business as well as from the work of contractor. The claimants are the parents of deceased. At the time of accident the motorcycle was insured with United India Insurance Company. The claimants filed claim petition against the United India Insurace Company for compensation of Rs. Ten lacs.
3. The opposite party United India Insurance Company filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The insurance company also alleged that the motorcycle involved in the accident was not having valid registration, insurance cover and its driver was not having valid driving license.
4. The learned tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed following issues-
(1) Whether on 13-3-2004 at 4.15 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle No. U.A. 11-0303, it met with accident near Panch Pulia (Khadiyakhand), within P.S. Karanprayag, in which Arshad has died? If so, its effect?.
(2) Whether the vehicle involved in accident was not being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged by opposite party No.1 in its W.S.? If so, its effect?.
(3) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to get and from whom?.
5. In support of their case claimant Smt. Nazima produced herself as P.W.1 and also filed documentary evidence. However the opposite party did not adduce any kind of evidence.
6. The learned tribunal after hearing counsel for parties and consider the entire evidence on record partly decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment against the United India Insurance Company. The tribunal further directed that the insurance company shall be at liberty to recover the above amount of compensation from the legal heirs of owner/driver of vehicle Vinod Singh Rawat. The tribunal further directed that the motorcycle be seized so that proceeding of sale of the motorcycle be initiated, in case the legal heirs of Vinod Singh Rawat do not make payment of the amount of compensation to the insurance company.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and award the United India Insurance Company has preferred A.O. No. 667 of 2006 for setting aside the award passed against it and the claimants also filed A.O. No. 614 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation.
8. I have heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the claimants and Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the United India Insurance Company. 3
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the United India Insurance Company has submitted that the legal heirs of the owner/driver of the offending motorcycle were not made party to the petition, therefore, the order passed by tribunal to recover the amount from the legal heirs of the owner/driver as well as seizure of motorcycle, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the matter is liable to be remitted to MACT for its disposal afresh.
10. I find force in the above submission of learned counsel for the insurance company.
11. Since the tr
