National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Natho Devi and Others

Amitava Lala, J.—All the aforesaid three appeals are of the insurance company of the truck, which collided with Tata Sumo, by reason of which 3 persons expired. All the three appeals have been considered in analogous hearing, however, the First Appeal From Order No. 2491 of 2008 will be treated as the leading case.

Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended before us that accident was caused when the truck was coming down whereas the other vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo was going up. Therefore, there is a cause of contributory negligence. He further submitted that the claim petition was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), therefore, such claim petition is limited in nature unlike an application u/s 166 of the Act. In support of his contention, he explained that the provision of Section 140 of the Act is made for no fault liability, which is grossly limited in nature for all practical purposes. Upon going Through such Section we have come to know that amount of compensation is limited in nature. No proof of death or permanent disablement, is required. Claim shall not be defeated for any wrongful act, neglect or default nor the quantum will be recoverable. Likewise u/s 163-A payment of compensation is required to be made without any pleading or establishment or wrongful act or neglect or default of the vehicle concerned, but the amount is not limited and as per structured formula. Mr. Sinha wanted to give a new dimension of thought. He said that although Section 163-A is limited in nature but such limitation is made in favour of the claimants which has got nothing to do with regard to other aspects of the dispute. Other aspects of the dispute will be governed by the principle of Section 166 of the Act made for determining compensation.

According to us, it is true that so far as the claimants are concerned, nothing is to be proved u/s 163-A of the Act but it is also true to say that in the garb of considering the cause u/s 163-A of the Act, the nature of involvement of the two vehicles cannot be Ignored. However, in what way it will be proceeded, either by making both the insurance companies as parties or by holding one insurance company responsible to make payment to the claimants with any right of recovery from the other insurance company, is the domain of the tribunal. Question of Section 163-A of the Act is a question relating to the claimant''s entitlement without any proof or establishment but beyond such limit. It is for the contesting parties to bring to the notice of the tribunal about the involvement of the vehicles, liability thereof and apportionment of the amount of the compensation etc. and if any such issue is brought to the notice, the tribunal cannot ignore the same. The argument appears to be forceful.

Therefore, at the stage of admission, we dispose of the appeals granting liberty to the appellant-insurance company to make an application before the tribunal in the selfsame proceeding to implead the insurance company of the other vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo and get the cause decided by the tribunal. The tribunal will issue notice on such application and after giving adequate, opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, will pass appropriate order to that extent.

However, under no circumstance, the claimant''s entitlement will be jeopardised, therefore, the entire sum if already deposited, will be released in favour of the claimants, and if not deposited, it will be deposited within six weeks from this date and will be released immediately thereafter.

No order is passed as to costs.

Incidentally, the appellant prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed.