Patna High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ruplal Singh And Anr. on 6 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ502
JUDGMENT Lok Nath Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.94 recorded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Claim Case No. 1/57 of 1989 thereby and thereunder a sum of Rs. 70,000 was awarded to the claimant, i.e., respondent No. 1.
2. The fact in short for this appeal is that deceased Bhola Singh was working under Raju Kishore Sahu, i.e., respondent No. 2 as driver of Tempo van bearing No. BEP 8647. When the deceased was going in Bajaj pick-up van then on 21.1.1989 at about 7.30 p.m. or so, one unknown unidentified truck came and dashed which resulted in the accidental death of the deceased. The claimant being father of the deceased preferred the claim case for the death of his son and is claiming that his son was earning a sum of Rs. 750 per month. The Claims Tribunal allowed a total compensation of Rs. 70,000 as against the insurance company appellant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, appeal has been preferred by the insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though from the allegation in the claim case, it can be said that the deceased Bhola Singh, son of the claimant met with an accident while he was standing by the side of Bajaj pick-up van, an unknown truck came and dashed which resulted in his death so for this accident death involving an unknown vehicle the insurance company is not at all liable and insurance company is liable only when the offending vehicle is insured with the company for the accident case. The claimant himself has alleged that one unknown unidentified truck came rashly and negligently and dashed against the deceased resulting in his death. In that view of the matter, no liability can be fastened as against the appellant because it is a case of hit and run by unknown vehicle and the legislature foreseeing such accident made a special provision even under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to safeguard such contingency and interest of hit and run claim. Section 109-A clearly indicates that in such situation when the offending vehicle is unidentified then the claimant can file a petition for compensation before the Collector concerned who is competent authority to deal with such matter.
4. Counsel for the claimant-respondent also admitted that the offending vehicle remains unidentified and liberty may be given to the claimant for filing claim under Section 109-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Collector and further a sum of Rs. 15,000 has already been paid by the insurance company under the provision of Section 92-A may not be recovered by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the insurance company though contended that the insurance company is not at all liable but as this amount was paid under Section 92-A of the said Act the insurance company will not press for recovery of this amount. So in view of the evidence on record and submissions from the learned counsel of both parties, it can be said that the deceased, son of the claimant, died no doubt in an accident involving a vehicle but unfortunately that vehicle remains unidentified and admittedly, it was not insured with the appellant insurance company. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly unjustified in granting the compensation as against the appellant insurance company. The proper remedy in such event is to take recourse to Section 109-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the appellant can agitate this matter before the Collector, if so advised. But in any view of the matter the insurance company is not at all liable to compensate the claimant for the death of his son in this road accident.
5. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.4.1994 recorded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Claim Case No. 1/57 of 1989 is hereby set aside.