Civil appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court upheld Tribunal's finding of driver's negligence and affirmed insurance company's 'pay and recover' right when Act Only Policy covers only third party liability, not passengers.
Insurance company shall be at liberty to recover the amount paid to satisfy the award from the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
Date of Judgment : 4th February, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. Kulwant Singh, for the jeep owner. Mr. S.R.Paliwal, for the insurer. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the bus driver. Mr. L.K.Purohit, for the RSRTC. Mr. M.S.Soni, for the claimants.
<><><>
All these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 22.7.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in six separate claim cases.
The grievance raised in the appeals is that the direction given by the learned Tribunal in para No.36 of the judgment holding the two insurance companies involved in the case i.e. the respondents No.4 and 5 liable to satisfy the award
{2}
and yet, giving liberty to them to recover the amount from the appellant. The grievance is limited to the extent of the liberty given to the insurer to 'pay and recover' the amount from the appellant.
The appellant Mohan Lal the registered owner of the vehicle in question has challenged the award on two grounds viz. (i) that the learned Tribunal should have passed an order holding the insurance company and RSRTC to be responsible to satisfy the award jointly and severally with the appellant and (ii) that the appellant had sold his vehicle to Rewant Singh the non-claimant No.1, therefore, the learned Tribunal wrongly held the appellant responsible to satisfy the award as being the owner of the vehicle.
Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the two insurance companies, RSRTC and the driver of the bus have urged that it was the driver of the jeep, who was principally responsible for the accident in question. The finding regarding his rash and negligent driving being the cause of the accident is not liable to be interfered with. The claimants took a distinct stand in the claims that it was the driver of jeep, who drove the jeep rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident. The driver of the jeep namely Rewant Singh did not contest the proceedings despite service of notice, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were undertaken against him. It is also submitted that the jeep in question was insured as a private
{3}
vehicle under the Act Only Policy. Passengers were being plied in the jeep and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the claim as it is a case of no insurance whatsoever for the passengers travelling in the vehicle. It was further submitted that the appellant has tried to take a plea that Rewant Singh took the jeep on Supardaginama in the criminal case giving an undertaking that he would submit the registration certificate subsequently. However, the jeep was not owned by Rewant Singh on the date of the accident because the registration certificate thereof was not transferred to his name. As such, the appellant has rightly been held responsible to satisfy the claim jointly and severally with the driver of the jeep. Learned counsel further submitted that though the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the claim yet the learned Tribunal has ordered the insurance company to satisfy the claim and then to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the jeep in question, which is also illegal. However, they do not dispute the fact that the insurance company has not challenged the said direction thus issued by the learned Tribunal.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment.
The specific case of the claimants in their claims was that it was the jeep driver Rewant Singh, who drove the jeep rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident.
{4}
The said finding has not been very seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The driver of the jeep namely Rewant Singh did not file any reply to the claim petitions despite service of notice and therefore, the said averment made in the claim petitions was rightly held proved against the owner and driver of the jeep. The learned Tribunal in paras No.20 to 24 of the impugned award, appreciated the evidence available on record in thorough detail and reached to a satisfaction that it was the jeep driver alone, who was responsible for the accident. He drove the jeep rashly and negligently and whilst trying to overtake a bus hastily, lost control. A vehicle was coming from the opposite direction, therefore, he had to take the jeep off the road to the wrong side and due to that, the accident happened.
Thus, the facts as available on record clearly establish that jeep driver was alone responsible for the rash and negligent driving, which resulted into the accident and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal.
The quantum of the awards has not been challenged in the appeals and thus, this Court need not go into the question as to whether the quantum deserves to be modified at the instance of the appellant.
The only question which thus remains alive for
{5}
consideration of this Court in the appeals is as to whether the direction issued and liberty given by the learned Tribunal to the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the owner Mohan Lal after making payment to the claimants is liable to be interfered with.
It is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that the jeep in question was registered and insured as a private vehicle. It is also proved on record that the victims, who were travelling in the jeep were being carried as fare paying passengers. The jeep was insured under the Act Only Policy that is to say the premium was accepted by the insurance company for covering the risk only for the third parties and not for the passengers travelling in the jeep. Thus, the insurance company cannot be held liable to cover the risk of the passengers travelling in the vehicle in either capacity, gratuitous passengers or fare paying passengers. The legal position in this regard is settled by the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. reported in (2003)2 SCC 223 and M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 1340. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that the insurance company could even not have been saddled with the liability to make payment of the award and then to recover the amount from the owner. However, this Court is not going into the validity of the said direction issued
{6}
by the learned Tribunal in view of the fact that the awards have already been satisfied by the insurance company and as the said direction was not challenged by the insurance company by way of appeal.
Resultantly, the appeals being bereft of any merit are hereby rejected. The insurance company shall be at liberty to recover from the appellate owner, the amount paid by it to satisfy the award.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back
forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be placed in all the
connected appeals.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's direction allowing the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the vehicle owner after payment is liable to be interfered with.
Whether the appellant as the registered owner is liable to satisfy the award despite selling the vehicle, given the lack of contesting affidavit from the actual driver.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors.Referred¶32
(2003)2 SCC 223 · Who else cites this
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors.Referred¶32
AIR 2004 SC 1340 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Lal
Lekh Ram
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
