AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P.Dholaria, J
Heard Mr.M.I.Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioners.
The petitioners, by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order dated 3.1.2018 passed below Exh.19 in MACP No.171 of 2016 by learned MACT (Aux) & 5th Additional District Judge, Jamnagar deleting opponent No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company as party.
Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently contended that once the insurer is impleaded as party to the proceedings, it can never be deleted in view of the decision of this Court rendered in First required to be prosecuted for which the claim is preferred against it. Record and Proceedings indicates that since deceased Husainbhai Sidikbhai was driving motor cycle bearing registration No.GJ 10 BC 97100 which was owned by respondent No.2 - Rajakbhai Siddikbhai Thaiyam and the said vehicle met with an accident and therefore, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased cannot claim compensation from the owner and insurance company upon which the deceased himself was driving as they are no more third party as envisaged under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
When the insurance company tendered the aforesaid application Exh.19 for deletion as party, learned Tribunal considered the said application on merits. Learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Ningamma Vs United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2009(0)-GLHEL-SC-43604 wherein the Honourable Apex Court has clearly laid down that heirs and legal representatives of the deceased person who was driving the motor vehicle after borrowing it from the real owner which met with an accident, without involving other vehicle, would not be entitled to claim any compensation either under section 166 or section 166-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Indisputably, the cause title of the petition itself makes it clear that neither the deceased claimant was paid driver nor he was registered owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, even if Rs.50/- is recovered as premium under the contract of insurance, the borrower of the vehicle would not be entitled to claim any compensation from the insurer of the aforesaid motor cycle which deceased was driving at the relevant point of time and therefore, reliance placed by Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioners on the above referred decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the clear decision of the Honourable Apex Court. Learned Tribunal has rightly deleted the opponent No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company as party and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant would be entitled to claim compensation from other respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of other vehicle involved in the vehicular accident as such in accordance with the provisions of law. Since no effective award could be passed in view of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Apex Court and that opponent No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company is not at all necessary party for adjudication of the claim petition.
Under the circumstances, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.