ISRO Satellite Center vs Bharath Electronics

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. However, on merits, it is noticed that the appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The appellant is a Government of India undertaking under the Department of Space, engaged in space research work and claims to be one of the leading organizations in the world. It transpires that the defendant which is again a Government of India undertaking, had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to provide service of drivers to drive vehicles owned by the plaintiff, on a consolidated payment. Accordingly, the defendant had provided the services of one Kanakaraju who was driving the vehicle bearing No. CAY-5745. While driving the bus on 2.3.2001, he had crashed into a motorcycle near the Windsor Manor Hotel, Bangalore and caused an accident, as a result of which the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to injuries. A case was registered and the driver was charge-sheeted and ultimately he was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). The legal representatives of the deceased had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore and the petition was allowed awarding a compensation of Rs. 8,62,000/-. The plaintiff thereafter, had challenged that award by way of an appeal before this Court in M.F.A. 6486/2003 and that award came to be modified reducing the compensation to Rs. 5,64,000/- along with interest at 7%. The plaintiff had complied with the award. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the fact to the notice of the defendant about the negligent act of the driver and the award passed by the Tribunal and sought to invoke the terms and conditions of the agreement originally entered into on 29.12.1999 and claimed that the amount paid by the plaintiff by way of compensation, ought to be reimbursed. Since the defendant did not comply, the suit was brought claiming a total of Rs. 7,17,209/-. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver who had been engaged, and denied its liability. The defendant further pointed out that it was not a party to the claim petition and it was the plaintiff who had suffered the award and therefore, the question of recovering the amount from the defendant independently, did not arise. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant any accident caused due to the negligent act of the driver provided by the defendant, the damage caused has to be recovered by the defendant?

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has provided the driver by name Sri. Kanakaraju and he caused the death of motor cyclist by means accident and the award passed in MVC No. 2483/01 dated 30.6.03 against the plaintiff is liable to payable to the defendant?

Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff being the owner of the vehicle it is compulsory of covering the risk by insuring the vehicle and for the negligence of the plaintiff this defendant is not held liable to pay any of the award amount?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as sought against the defendant?

To what decree or order?

The court held the issues in the negative and dismissed the suit. It is that which is under challenge.

The learned counsel for the appellant seeks to support the ground on which the present appeal is filed.

Given the above circumstances, it was for the appellant to have ensured that the respondent-defendant was also made a party to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the liability insofar as the payment of compensation was concerned could have been decided as between them. Since the appellant allowed the award to be passed against the plaintiff and having satisfied the same, could not recover the same from the defendant. In any event, both the parties are Government of India undertakings and hence, whether the liability has been met by the plaintiff or if it was to be met by the defendants, makes little difference in the ultimate analysis. Therefore, it would stand in the interest of justice if the matter is given a quietus.

Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.