Shiv Pratap Singh v. Jasbir Singh

1. Shiv Pratap Singh, the appellant in MAC APP.104/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), had instituted an accident MACAppeal No. 66/2009& 104/2009 Page I of[5] claim case on 30.10.1995, seeking compensation invoking Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it having been registered as claim case No.746/1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). It was stated in the said claim petition that on 22.05.1995 a motor vehicular accident took place at about 09:30 p.m. on Delhi Mathura Road near Chatta Sugar Mill, District Mathura involving two vehicles,they being Maruti van No.DL-4CB-1361 (the van hereinafter)and tanlcer bearing no.DL-lGA-0328(tanker). While the claimant was concededly the driver ofthe Van moving from Delhi towards Agra caiTying certain other persons, the tanker was moving ahead ofit. It was alleged that Jasbir Singh,shown in the array as the driver and owner ofthe tanlcer, had suddenly applied brakes,stopping his vehicle in the middle of the road without any prior caution. On account ofsuch negligent driving,the van was involved in a collision resulting in injuries being suffered, amongst others, by the claimants. The petition was later amended so as to join United India Assurance Company Limited,the insurer ofthe tanker, as respondent no.2. The van which the claimant was driving was owned atthe relevant point of time by Satpal Singh Chawla, he having been impleaded as third respondent before the Tribunal,it being insured againstthird party risk for the relevant period with M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited(appellant in MAC APT.66/2009).

2. The Tribunal held inquiry and, by its judgment dated 18.02.2006, declined to grant any compensation dismissing the petition holding, inter alia, that the claimant had not been able to MACAppealNo. 66/2009& 104/2009 Page 2of[5] n-prove that he had sustained injuries on account of rash or negligent driving ofthe tanlcer.

3. The claimant came to this court by MAC APP.480/2006 which was allowed by judgment dated 9'^" July, 2008 holding the finding returned by the Tribunal to be perverse remanding the matter for a fresh decision particularly in view of the fact that the insurance company had come up with the plea ofcontributory negligence as one ofthe defences.

4. In the inquiry held after such remand, evidence was led. The inquiry eventually resulted in judgment dated 01.10.2008 whereby claim for compensation was upheld and on the basis of finding returned concerning the nature of injuries and the loss suffered, compensation in the sum ofRs.6,03,600/- was awarded. The Tribunal held that it was a case of composite liability on the part of both the vehicles {i.e. the van and the tanker) and, therefore, fastened the liability on the first and third respondents, mentioned above,in equal proportion holding, in turn, their respective insurers to indemnijfy directing compliance to be made within thirty days ofsuch order.

5. The insurer of the van has come up in appeal (MAC APP.66/2009)pressing it on a very short point, i.e., the claimant was not a third party in its relation and, therefore, it had no liability to discharge.

6. The claimant, on the other hand, has come up with his appeal (MAC APP.104/2009)seeking enhancementofcompensation.Though MACAppealNo. 66/2009 cS 104/2009 Page 3of[5] at one stage, the counsel for the claimant try to argue that the claim was wrongly treated as one brought under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,the evidence having been led on the question of negligence as well, and that the Tribunal should have considered it to be a case for compensation under the Section 166 of the Act, after some arguments, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted, on instructions,thathe may be allowed to withdraw the said appeal.

7. In view of the above submissions, the appeal of the claimant Shiv Pratap Singh(MAC AFP.104/2009)is dismissed as withdrawn.

8. The counsel for the second respondent (M/s. United India Assurance Company Limited), it being the insurer of the tanker, submitted at the hearing that since the Tribunal has held it to be a case ofcomposite liability, even ifthe insurer ofthe van {i.e., appellant in MAC APP.66/2009) were not accountable, the case being not of a third party,the owner ofthe van,i.e.. Sat Pal Singh Chawla(the third respondent)must bear his liability..

9. The learned counsel for the claimant fairly agreed that the claimant would not stand in the capacity ofa third party in relation to the appellant insurer ofthe van since he being in use ofthe vehicle as the driver for and on behalf of the owner (the insured), his claim cannot stand against the insurer whose liability to indemnify is restricted to claims ofthird parties. He,however,submitted that since it is a case of composite liability, the insurer of the tanker may be called upon to pay the entire amount though it may be given recovery rights against the owner ofthe van. MACAppeal No. 66/2009& 104/2009 Page 4of[5]

10. It is clear from the record that SatPal Singh Chawla,the owner of the van did not file any appeal challenging the liability fastened against him. In the given facts and circumstances the appeal ofthe New India Assurance Company Limited (MAC APP.66/2009) deservesto be allowed.Ordered accordingly.

11. The liability fastened on the above said insurance company (insurer ofthe van)by the Tribunal is set aside.

12. The appellant in MAC APP.66/2009 M/s.New India Assurance Company Limited has already deposited 50% ofthe awarded amount with the Tribunal which was invested and upon which interest has been released to the claimant from time to time in terms ofthe earlier orders. The amount lying with the Tribunal shall now be released to the claimantforthwith.The appellantinsurance company may take out appropriate proceedings to recover itfrom the owner ofthe van.

13. The statutory amount, if made, shall also be refunded to the appellantinsurance company.

14. Both the appeals stand disposed ofin above terms. JULY 05,2017 vk.K.G MACAppeal No. 66/2009& 104/2009 Page5of[5]