National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Keku Devi

Arun Bhansali, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 27.6.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra (''the Tribunal''), whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the legal representatives of deceased Rawata Ram and Hema Ram and to the injured Bhanwara Ram. The applications for compensation (''application'') were filed u/s 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (''the Act'') with the averments that on 6.11.2010 at about 7 p.m., both the deceased and the injured were travelling in a pick-up van bearing registration No. RJ 04-G 1548 being driven by driver Dhuda Ram, when the said vehicle collided with a tractor bearing registration No. RJ 21-1R 7724, which resulted in grievous injuries to the occupants of the pick-up van, including Bhanwara Ram, to which Rawata Ram and Hema Ram succumbed. The claimants claimed various sums on account of death of Rawata Ram and Hema Ram and for the injuries suffered by Bhanwara Ram. Driver, owner and insurer of the tractor only were impleaded as parties.

The replies to the applications were filed by the insurance company and non-impleadment of the owner and the insurer of the pick-up van was questioned. The insurance company also raised other pleas.

It may also be noticed that appellant insurance company also filed application during the pendency of the applications under Order 1, rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of owner, driver and insurer of the pick-up van. Its application was rejected by the Tribunal observing that the issue in this regard has already been framed, which would take care of the said application.

The Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim petition u/s 163-A of the Act came to the conclusion that the vehicle (tractor) was involved in the accident and citing certain judgments came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the owner and insurer of the pick-up van were necessary parties to the claim petition. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,98,000 for death of Rawata Ram, Rs. 4,44,000 for death of Hema Ram and Rs. 28,245 for the injuries suffered by Bhanwara Ram along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the owner and insurer of the pick-up van, in which the deceased and the injured were travelling, were necessary parties to the claim petition u/s 163-A of the Act and in absence thereof, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed; though for decision of a claim u/s 163-A of the Act, the negligence of the vehicles involved is of no consequence, but then the very fact that more than one vehicle are involved in the accident, the same would effect the ultimate liability of the owner/insurance company, therefore, the owner and insurer of all the vehicles involved are necessary parties; the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses relying on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, which is contrary to the scheme of section 163-A and Second Schedule to the Act as under the said provision, the compensation has to be awarded strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule and the Schedule provides for V3rd deduction on account of personal expenses, which cannot be varied. However, learned counsel fairly conceded that V3rd deduction in place of 1/4th deduction would not involve substantial amount and the said issue may be kept open.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that despite his best efforts he could not find support or any precedent holding the presence of the owners and insurers of all the vehicles involved in an accident for an application u/s 163-A of the Act as necessary parties.

This court in Indra Devi v. Anand Prakash Malviya, S.B.C.M.A. No. 4351 of 2011; decided on 3.10.2013 (Rajasthan), while considering a similar controversy held as under:

"Coming to the question of requirement to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the truck and they being necessary parties to the said application on account of involvement of more than one vehicle. There is nothing in section 163-A to show that when two motor vehicles are involved, claim must be staked against the owner and insurer of both the vehicles as in the case of section 140 of the Act. The option is of the claimants to claim against the owner/insurer of either or both the vehicles. A claim u/s 163-A lies only against the owner of the vehicle and the authorised insurer and it does not lie against the driver unless the driver is the owner also. The option of the claimants is not in any way restricted by language of section 163-A of the Act."

From the above judgment of this court, the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is no more res integra and it cannot be said that the presence of owner and insurer of the pick-up van was necessary for adjudication of the application u/s 163-A of the Act.

So far as issue relating to deduction for personal expenses in an application u/s 163-A of the Act is concerned, looking to the submissions made and meagre amount involved, keeping the said issue open to be considered by this court in an appropriate case, the same does not call for any interference in the present case. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, there is no substance in these appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed.