M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited vs Kusum Lata and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by United Insurance Company Limited (in short, "The Insurance Company"), challenge is to award dated 18.03.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (in short, "The Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 17 of 2003, instituted by respondents No. 1 to 4 herein claiming compensation for the death of Devender Singh caused in motor vehicle accident. Learned Tribunal vide common award dated 18.03.2005 disposed of seven claim petitions arising out of the same accident, including claim petition instituted by respondents No. 1 to 4. The accident occurred between a bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and a private TATA Sumo vehicle. In six claim petitions, drivers and owners of both the vehicles and the petitioner-Insurance Company as insurer of the TATA Sumo vehicle were impleaded as respondents. The petitioner-Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No. 7. However, unfortunately, in claim petition No. 17 of 2003 filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, only driver and owners of the bus were impleaded as respondents and driver, owner and insurer of TATA Sumo were not impleaded as respondents.

Learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 18.03.2005 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. After quantifying the amounts of compensation to which the claimants were found entitled to in all the cases except one case instituted by Om Parkash, the claim petition filed by Om Parkash was dismissed. In the remaining six claim petitions including claim petitions filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, the Tribunal awarded various amounts of compensation and all the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the same. However, the liability of driver and owners of the bus was apportioned to be 75% and liability of driver, owner and insurer of the TATA Sumo vehicle was apportioned to be 25%.

Grievance of the petitioner-Insurance Company in the instant revision petition is that it was not party to Claim Petition No. 17 of 2003 instituted by respondents No. 1 to 4 herein and therefore petitioner-Insurance Company is not liable to pay 25% of the compensation awarded in the said claim petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that petitioner-Insurance Company being not party to the claim petition of respondents No. 1 to 4, the petitioner is not liable to pay 25% of compensation amount awarded in the said case.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention which on first blush appears to be very attractive, but on careful scrutiny, the contention cannot be accepted. Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing grant of compensation to victims of motor vehicular accidents, are beneficial provisions and have to be interpreted liberally in favour of the victims of the accidents. In the instant case, the petitioner-Insurance Company was party to six of the seven claim petitions which were disposed of by common award by the Tribunal because all the seven petitions had arisen out of the same accident. The petitioner-Insurance Company defended the claim petitions and therefore, it cannot be exonerated of its liability to pay 25% of the compensation amount in the claim petition of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein merely because the petitioner was not impleaded as party in the said claim petition, although the petitioner was party in the other six claim petitions which were tried jointly with the claim petition of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner remained undefended in the claim petition instituted by respondents No. 1 to 4. In these circumstances, aforesaid grievance of the petitioner-Insurance Company which is hypertechnical in nature cannot be accepted particularly while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned that counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has already satisfied the award in the remaining claim petitions as per impugned award dated 18.03.2005. Consequently, the petitioner should not have any grievance in satisfying the award in the claim petition of respondents No. 1 to 4 to the extent of 25% as per award of the Tribunal. Resultantly, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.