Anita Devi and Others vs Bhuneshwar Shah and Another

Loknath Prasad, J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants and not by the owner of the vehicle against whom the impugned order has been passed.

The contention of Mr. Lal is that as because it will take much time for realising the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the appellants have moved this Court taking a plea that in an order u/s 140 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company can also be made liable.

Provisions of appeal under Motor Vehicles Act is Section 173, which, inter alia, postulates that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claim Tribunal, may within 90 days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Thus locus standi is fixed i.e. the person who is aggrieved by an award of the Tribunal.

Admittedly the claimants are not aggrieved inasmuch as they are to get the interim compensation and the Tribunal has gave that relief to them.

Mr. Lal fairly concedes that even if liability would have been fixed on the Insurance Company, the claimants would not have got more amount than Rs. 50,000/-. The second contention of Mr. Lal is that the Tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of a ward and not after one month from the award. In my view, the same cannot be looked into at that is, Insurance Company, is that he is challenging the order of the Court below on the ground that the deceased had neither met with an accident nor died during the course of employment; rather it is out-and-out a criminal case and due to the action of the criminal, the deceased lost his life and in that view of the matter, no compensation can be awarded under the Act, as against Insurance Company.

For appreciating this fact, it canagfa be said that admittedly the deceased was driver of the truck and the owner is respondent No. 2 and the deceased allowed two persons, the former driver Ramzan and another, to board in the cabin of the truck and the deceased himself allowed Ramzan to drive the vehicle and thus man taking advantage of this fact another person fired on the deceased for which he died. So the entire occurrence took place at the time when the deceased was not doing the duty of his master, that is, driving the vehicle. In that view of the matter the claimant-respondent No. 1 is not entitled to realise the compensation from the Insurance Company; rather from the owner of the truck, that is, respondent No. 2. Similar view was taken by a Bench of this Court passed in CWJC106/86Rdated 18th September, 1987.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act dated 30.11.194 directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount is hereby set aside and it is ordered that respondent No. 1 mother of the deceased is entitled to realise the entire compensation amount of Rs. 87,980/- as awarded by the Commissioner from the owner of the truck, that is, respondent No. 2, with future and pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum.