Patna High Court - Orders
The Divisional Manager & Anr. vs Sujata Devi & Ors. on 3 January, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.330 of 2010
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. New Market,
Purnea......Opposite Party No. 3 in the court below.
2. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. R.B.S.S. Road,
Bhagalpur......Opposite Party No. 4 in the court below.
..........Appellants.
Versus
1. SUJATA DEVI, W/o Adalat Paswan, R/o Village-Parvi Hardaspur Chowk, P.O.
Sansarpur Mansi, P.S.-Mufasil Sansarpur (Khagaria) District-Khagaria..Claimant
in the court below.
2. Bibi Alam Ara, W/o Md. Alimuddin, R/o Kabristhan Line Bazar, P.S.-Khazanchi
Hat (K.Hat), District-Purnea.....Owner of the Vehicle....Opposite Party No. 1 in
the court below.
3. Adalat Paswan, S/o Late Sri Paswan, R/o Village-Parvi Hardaspur Chowk, P.O.
Sansarpur Mansi, P.S.-Mufasil Sansarpur (Khagaria) District-
Khagaria....Claimant No. 2 in the court below.
4. Parmeshwar Pandit, S/o Yogendra Pandit, R/o Harda Bazar, P.S.-K.Hat, District-
Purnea......Driver of the Vehicle.....Opposite Party No. 2 in the court below.
..........Respondents.
-----------
05. 03.01.2011The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.12.2009 & 07.01.2010 respectively passed in Claim Case No. 18 of 1999 by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur by which he has allowed compensation of Rs. 1,61,000/- including Rs. 50,000/- as ad interim compensation to the claimant, Respondent No. 1 herein.
The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award of the court below on the limited point that it was the owner who was responsible for compensating the claimant since he had hired the services of a person without a valid license and thus violated the terms of Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act. When notices were issued to the to the Respondents No. 1 and 3 they did not appear but today Respondent No. 2 who is the main contesting respondent has been heard at full length.
On going through the judgment of the court below and hearing the counsels on behalf of the parties, I find that the 2 owner did not make out a case that he had hired a driver with a valid license and therefore he had not "Willfully" violated the terms of agreement with the Insurance Company and it appears that it was the Insurance Company which had taken details of the driving license of the driver from the Investigating Officer.
Unfortunately, the owner of the vehicle has not discharged his responsibility as was expected of him and, therefore, in my view, the matter should be remanded to the court below for a fresh adjudication after hearing the Appellants and the Respondent No. 2 who happens to be the owner of the vehicle only on the point as to whose responsibility it is to compensate the claimant. It is made clear that the amount of compensation nor the fact that the claimant deserves compensation is not under-challenge.
The orders dated 04.12.2009 and 07.01.2010 passed in Claim Case No. 18 of 1999 is set aside for a limited purpose and the matter is remanded to the court below for a fresh adjudication within four months of the receipt of the order only on the point indicated above.
With these observations, the application is disposed off.
(Anjana Prakasah, J.) Vikash/-