Case at a Glance
A woman was hit from behind by a private bus running under contract with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in June 2001 and died days later. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 1,69,500 against the Corporation after its counsel said he was ‘not pressing’ the issues on whether the bus’s own insurer was liable. The Allahabad High Court held that not pressing an issue is not automatically a waiver, that the statutory duty to notify the insurer cannot be waived, and that a tribunal must decide all the issues it frames. It set aside the award on liability and compensation and sent the case back, with the insurer as a party.
On 30 June 2001, at about 4 pm, Jamuna Devi was struck from behind by a bus on the Barabanki–Gonda road and died on the night of 3/4 July 2001 during treatment. The bus belonged to a private owner and had been attached to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) under an agreement. Her husband and three sons claimed Rs 5 lakh. The Tribunal framed five issues: negligence of the driver; whether the petition was defective for not impleading the bus’s insurer; whether the insurer’s liability ended because the bus was plied under contract with UPSRTC; whether the bus was validly insured on the date of the accident; and the amount of compensation and who should pay it.
On 14 February 2007, UPSRTC’s counsel recorded that he was not pressing issues 2, 3 and 4, and the Tribunal answered all three against the Corporation on that basis alone. By its award of 3 April 2007, treating the deceased as a housewife, it assessed income at Rs 15,000 a year, deducted one-third, applied a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs 1,69,500 with 5% interest against UPSRTC. In appeal, UPSRTC argued that it was neither the owner nor the employer of the driver and that, under its agreement, the owner and insurer were liable, relying on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 09 SC CK 0093. The High Court admitted additional evidence in 2013, including a policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. covering the date of accident, and impleaded the insurer. The claimants also filed a cross-objection seeking a higher notional income.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal treat issues as answered merely because a party’s counsel said they were ‘not pressed’, without deciding them, particularly where they concern whether the vehicle’s insurer is liable?
Waiver Must Be Proved, and Statutory Duties Cannot Be Waived
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held that not pressing an issue is not automatically a waiver; waiver is a question of fact requiring a conscious and intentional giving up of a known right. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court noted that “Whether or not a party has waived his right has to flow from his conduct”. Among the decisions discussed were Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 04 SC CK 0014, (1987) 2 SCC 654, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SC CK 0026, (2011) 10 SCC 509, Jogindra Singh Sodhi, (2005) 1 SCC 31, and Union of India v. Bali Ram (2026). The Court also rejected the insurer’s reliance on Gour Hari Das v. Jharna Rani Das for the proposition that unpressed issues stand waived.
Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 207 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules make notice to the insurer mandatory. The Court held that “such waiver cannot be construed as a waiver of a statutory provision enacted in public interest” and that the obligation “cannot be defeated by waiver of the parties.” Since the issues on the insurer’s liability were interconnected with the question of who must pay, “The learned Tribunal was under legal obligation to determine all the Issues that were framed”, and its failure to do so made the award defective. The claimants’ cross-objection, filed 2 years, 7 months and 18 days late without sufficient cause, was dismissed as time-barred following Mahadev Govind Gharge v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2011) 05 SC CK 0054, (2011) 6 SCC 321, while preserving their right to seek just compensation before the Tribunal.
What the Court Actually Held
- A counsel’s statement that issues are ‘not pressed’ does not, by itself, amount to waiver; the Tribunal must decide every issue it frames.
- Notice to the insurer under Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the U.P. Rules is a statutory duty enacted in public interest and cannot be defeated by the parties’ waiver.
- The Tribunal’s findings on issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the award of 3 April 2007 were set aside and the matter was remitted to MACT, Barabanki for fresh adjudication, with the insurer treated as a continuing party; parties are to appear on 10 December 2026.
- The claimants’ cross-objection was dismissed as time-barred, and amounts already released to them remain subject to the final determination.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Contract buses run under State transport corporations are common; the judgment makes tribunals decide whether the bus’s own insurer must pay.
- It warns against disposing of framed issues on a counsel’s concession without examining them.
- It shows that delay in filing cross-objections in MACT appeals can cost claimants that remedy, even if their main claim survives.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If the vehicle was attached to a transport corporation, implead the owner and the vehicle’s insurer from the start.
- File any cross-objection on time; here a delay of over two and a half years led to its dismissal.
For Counsel
- Do not rely on a statement of ‘not pressed’ to close issues on insurance liability; insist that the Tribunal records findings on each issue.
- Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, such as the policy and attachment agreement, can be brought on record in appeal where it goes to the root of liability.
Key Takeaways
- Not pressing an issue is not automatic waiver; waiver must flow from conduct.
- Notice to the insurer under Section 168 MV Act cannot be waived by the parties.
- A tribunal must decide all framed issues, especially interconnected ones on liability.
- Award set aside on liability and quantum and remanded to MACT Barabanki.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is UPSRTC liable for accidents by private buses attached to it?
The High Court did not finally decide this. It held that the Tribunal had to decide the issues on the bus insurer’s liability and remitted the matter for fresh decision, with United India Insurance as a party.
What happens to money already paid to the family?
The High Court said amounts already released to the claimants remain subject to the Tribunal’s final determination on remand.
Why was the claimants’ cross-objection dismissed?
It was filed 2 years, 7 months and 18 days late without sufficient cause, so it was dismissed as time-barred; their right to seek just compensation before the Tribunal was preserved.
Conclusion
Twenty-five years after the accident, the family will have to return to the Tribunal. That delay is regrettable, but the High Court’s point is fundamental: who pays compensation is not a question that can be skipped because a lawyer chose not to argue it, particularly when an insurer may be liable under the statute.
Practical takeaway: In MACT cases involving vehicles attached to transport corporations, make sure the vehicle’s insurer is impleaded and that the Tribunal records reasoned findings on every liability issue.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com