AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
These two appeals arise out the same award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Champawat in MACT Case No.16 of 2014, whereby an amount of Rs.30,64,413/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen Only) has been awarded as compensation to the claimants. Hence, they have been clubbed together.
Appeal from Order No. 655 of 2016 has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the part of the award whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to give the awarded amount to the claimants and thereafter recoverable rights have been given to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, as the contention of the Insurance Company is that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire liability should have been on the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
So far as Appeal from Order No. 496 of 2016 is concerned, it has been filed by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the claim petition has been decided against the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and the Insurance Company has been given the rights to recover the amount of compensation from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2010 during Purnagiri mela at Tanakpur, a bus bearing registration no. UA 07-T-0754 was leaving Tanakpur for Lohaghat, Champawat. Sri Sunder Singh Dugtal who was the Sub-Inspector in the Uttarkhand Police was trying to arrange a seat for his wife and had just stepped inside the bus. While he was on the foot board, without making any announcement or warning, the driver of the bus started the engine and pushed the bus forward, as a result of which, Sri Sunder Singh Dugtal fell down from the bus, and received fatal injuries and subsequently died at Bombay Hospital in Haldwani on 14.06.2010. The driver of the bus ran away from the spot. An FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus at Police Station, Tanakpur under Sections 279/337 and 338 of IPC and after its investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the bus under Sections 279/337/338 and 304A of IPC.
A claim petition was filed by the wife and the children of the deceased Sunder Singh Dugtal before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.58,70,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand Only).
Written statements were filed by the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle i.e. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether on 23.05.2010 when the deceased came with his wife at the bus station for boarding the bus to Champawat, the deceased tried to board the bus in order to arrange a seat for his wife, and whether at about 10:00 a.m., the driver of the bus/respondent no. 2 without giving any warning moved the bus forward in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the fall of the deceased from the bus, thereby sustaining injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.?
Whether the ill-fated vehicle No. UA 07 T-0754 was not validly insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance Company, as has been alleged in para no. 8 (b) of the written submission?
Whether the driving licence of the driver of the ill-fated vehicle no. UA 07 T-0754 was not valid, as alleged by respondent no. 3 in para no. 8(c) of the written submission?
Whether the ill-fated bus no. UA 07 T-0754 was being run against the conditions of the permit and insurance policy, as alleged in para 8 (d) of the written submission of respondent no. 3.
Whether the claimants are entitled for any relief? If yes, then to what extent and from which of the parties?"
While deciding issue no. 1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased Sunder Singh Dugtal died in the accident occurred on 23.05.2010 due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registration no. UA No. 07T-0754 by its driver.
While deciding issue nos. 2 and 3, the learned Tribunal decided the issues against the Insurance Company and recorded the finding that on the date of accident the bus was validly and effectively insured with the Insurance Company.
While deciding issue no. 4, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus in question was being plied against the terms and conditions of the permit and the insurance policy.
As far as compensation amount is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 30,64,413/-(Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen Only) to the claimants.
In both these appeals, since no one has disputed the quantum of the award which is Rs.30,64,413/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirteen Only), the quantum itself goes unchallenged.
The only issue raised by the Insurance Company is that since there was a categorical finding of the Tribunal that the bus was not having a valid permit, the entire liability should have been fixed upon the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, including the liability to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants. What has been done is that the liability to give the amount has been fixed upon the Insurance Company with liberty to them to recover the entire awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, however, would argue that there is a categorical finding that the bus was insured with the Insurance Company. The finding as to the bus was not having a valid permit to ply on the route is inconsequential and has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the route on which the bus was plying and the accident occurred is a "notified route", where only the vehicles of the Government Corporation, such as, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation can ply, and private stage carriage vehicles cannot even ply on these routes. The learned counsel for the Corporation Sri Ashish Joshi would argue that the route was notified, and on this route only the vehicles i.e. stage carriages, of the Corporation could ply. Moreover, amongst the various buses of the Corporation inter-change of buses is common. All buses have the permit. Therefore slight variation in the route will not make any difference. The Insurance Company is harping on a mere technicality in order to get away from its responsibility, submits the learned counsel.
As far as the permit is concerned, the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has relied upon the fact that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is a permit given to a bus belonging to a Corporation in this regard i.e. the permit to ply the bus, it is different from the notification of the route as a notified area then it would not matter even if that permit has expired inasmuch as the Scheme under which the notified area has been given still survives. The bus in question was the Government Corporation vehicle, duly insured with the Insurance Company, which was plying on a notified area, and merely because it was not having a permit of that particular route though had for other routes will not fasten the liability on the owner. Learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has also argued that in their case permit is not given of an individual bus but given to ply bus on nationalized routes to a given number of vehicles depending upon the contingencies.
Learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has relied upon paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the Division Bench judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mamta Devi and others, reported in 2015 (4) T.A.C. 367 (All.), which read as under:-
"15. With regard to the issue of necessary permit, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 3110, has held that renewal of permits of Corporation is not necessary during the subsistence of scheme in respect of notified routes/areas. In paragraph 9 it has been held as under :
"A combined reading of Sections 68-B, 68-F (1-E) and Rule 10 (supra) shows that in so far as notified routes are concerned, for which the Corporation has an exclusive right to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed under the Act, the duration of the permit obtained by the Corporation for plying those vehicles is conterminous with the life of the scheme. Sub-clause (4) of Rule says, "the permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the scheme in force."
In the case in hand, the Corporation by producing documentary evidence established that Gorakhpur-Maghar-Khalilabad-Basti was a notified route and the scheme No. (2) was in force and thus it cannot be said that the operation was illegal for want of any valid permit."
Therefore on these admitted facts when there is a categorical finding that the bus involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance Company and since the vehicle belongs to the Government Corporation, which was running on a notified area under the Scheme, a fact which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, the appeal of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is liable to be allowed. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside to the extent liability has been fixed upon the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
Consequently, the Appeal from Order No. 655 of 2016 filed by the Insurance Company is also dismissed. The liability to pay the amount of compensation shall be on the Insurance Company alone. Let the Insurance Company deposit the entire amount before the concerned Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, which shall be given to the claimants forthwith adjusting the amount already paid to them.
Since in the order of the Tribunal it has come that if the awarded amount is given within a period of one month from the date of the judgment, it shall carry 6 percent simple interest per annum and in case the same is not paid within that period, then it will carry a simple interest of 9 percent per annum. Let the interest be paid by the Insurance Company as per the directions of the Tribunal. The statutory amount which the appellants have deposited before this Court shall also be remitted to the concerned Tribunal along with the lower court record.