Back
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
Inclusion of all relevant parties in a claim petition is essential for a valid judgment and award.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal - United India Insurance Company - MACT No. 70 of 2005 - Issues (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving, (2) Validity of insurance cover and driving license, (3) Amount of compensation - Summary: The court addressed the issues of negligence in driving, validity of insurance cover and driving license, and the determination of compensation. The court found that the legal heirs of the owner/driver were not made party to the petition, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and award for reevaluation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motorcycle accident due to rash and negligent driving, leading to a claim petition for compensation against the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the legal heirs of the owner/driver were not made party to the petition, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and award for reevaluation.
Issues: Negligent driving, Validity of insurance cover and driving license, Amount of compensation
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to include legal heirs as respondents in the claim petition led to the setting aside of the judgment and award for reevaluation.
Final Decision: The judgment and award were set aside, and the matter was remitted for reevaluation with the inclusion of legal heirs as respondents.
B.S. Verma, J.;-
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
