Insurance companies are liable to compensate even if not all parties involved are impleaded, ensuring claimants receive fair remuneration.

For the Appellants/claimants : Mr. Saidur Rahaman For the respondent No.1/insurance co. : Mr. Rajesh Singh Heard on Judgment on : 01.07.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. :-

1. The Learned Advocates for the appellants/claimants as well as the respondent No.1/insurance company are present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment dated 21^st December, 2012 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, 3^rd Court, Nadia, Krishnagar in MAC Case No. 8 of 2018 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.

3. An application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on account of the death of 18 year old boy in an accident which occurred on 26^th May, 2006 at about 6.30 P.M. on National Highway 34 near Chatimtala within the jurisdiction of Chakdha police station in the District of Nadia with the involvement of offending vehicle being a bus bearing registration No.WGB-3569 which proceeding at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently hit the victim who sustained severe injuries and died at a hospital.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted that the Learned Tribunal on the basis of an observation that the appellants/claimants did not implead the lorry bearing registration No.WB-Q-5987 to be a party, the appellants/claimants were not entitled to 50% of the compensation award. The Learned Tribunal had considered the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the driver of both the vehicles and also the submissions of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company before the same.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company submitted that the charge-sheet mentioned the liability of the bus bearing registration No. WGB- 3569 to the extent of 50% since it had not specifically mentioned that the driver of the offending vehicles being lorry and the bus were equally liable it can be construed that 50% of the liability was bestowed on either of the vehicles. Accordingly the respondent No.1/insurance company had been liable to disburse

50% of the compensation award.

6. Heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates representing both the parties.

7. Since, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, driving licence, route permit and insurance policy etc. have not been disputed by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent agitated by the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment and order inter alia stated as follows:

“In this context, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of claimant, submits 2000 W.B.L.R. (Cal) 289, whereas, Insurance Company placed his reliance on 2003 ACJ Page 1002 and 2008 ACJ 1165. In these two contexts, it appears the rulings cited by the Insurance Company, are latest and of Apex Court and the facts of the case, are supported the case law cited by the Insurance Company and from the evidences as came to court, that both the vehicles are liable for the said accident and charge-sheet has been submitted by the police against the driver of both the vehicles and the arguments as advanced by the Insurance Company is accepted. When the number of the vehicles has been lighted, then, it is not proper to invite another case and it is also true to avoid further litigation and chance of double payment, the said owner and Insurance Company are necessary party of this suit. But these petitioners did not take any step to made them party to this suit. According to that, this Insurance Company is liable to pay 50% of compensation money”.

8. Considering the beneficial intent of the legisla