Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagannath Singh And Ors. on 25 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ683
JUDGMENT Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. These appeals Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, dated have been filed under Section 110-D, Motor 29.1.1988, awarding compensation to the Vehicles Act, 1939, against the common claimants-respondents as noted below: judgment of the learned Judge, Motor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. No. and No. and Name of Amount Amount
year of year of deceased claimed awarded
appeal claim case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 154 of 1988 251 of 1985 Hempal Rs. 11,46,600/- Rs. 2,36,320/- (2) 271 of 1988 253 of 1985 Jagdish Rs. 6,20,000/- Rs. 1,47,040/- (3) 270 of 1988 252 of 1985 Srinarayan Rs. 12,63,000/- Rs. 2,28,640/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On 5.5.1985, at about 6.30 p.m., deceased Hempal, Srinarayan and Jagdish Narayan were going on motor cycle No. RRG 1189 to Jaipur from Bassi. It was being driven by the deceased Hempal on the correct side of the road. When it was near the octroi outpost, truck No. RNB 1677 came from the opposite direction rashly and negligently and struck the motor cycle resulting in the death of all the three riders. Claim petitions were accordingly filed by their legal representatives against the owner, driver and insurer of the said truck, i.e., Ratanlal Agrawal, respondent No. 5, Ranjeet Singh and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., appellant, respectively. Mehar Singh, the special power of attorney holder of the owner, was also impleaded as an opposite party. All of them filed their replies admitting that the truck was owned by Ratanlal Agrawal, it was insured with the appellant insurance company and was being driven at the time of the accident by its driver, Ranjeet Singh and the accident took place. The remaining averments of the claim petitions were denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded the said amounts. No opposite party produced any evidence.
3. In Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 154 of 1988 and 271 of 1988, cross-objections were filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents did not press them in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), vide order-sheets dated 13.1.1994 of the said appeals.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred to make liable the appellant insurance company to pay the entire amount of compensation in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The learned counsel for claimants-respondents and owner respondent duly supported the awards of the Tribunal by which the owner, driver and insurer have been made jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amounts of the awards.
5. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. Admittedly, the accident took place on 5.5.1985. According to the provisions of Section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as they then existed, the appellant insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in each case. As such in Claim Case Nos. 251 of 1985 and 252 of 1985, the appellant insurance company could not have been made liable to pay the said amounts of compensation, i.e., Rs. 2,36,320 and Rs. 2,28,640/-. It was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- only in each case. The awards passed in these two cases deserve to be modified accordingly. In view of the decision given in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company rightly did not press the ground that the insurance company was liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all the three cases.
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver Ranjeet Singh died during the pendency of the claim petitions, his legal representatives were not brought on record, still awards were passed against him and as such all the three awards passed were void, being against a dead person. There is no great force in this contention. Ranjeet Singh was not a necessary party in any claim petition, being driver of the offending truck. It was not even necessary to issue notice to him. Rule 6, Rajasthari Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964, requires issuance of notice to the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. When he was not a necessary party, it was also not necessary to bring his legal representatives on record after his death.
7. There is. yet another aspect of the matter. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to when the driver Ranjeet Singh died. His learned counsel did not intimate about his death as required under Order 22, Rule 1Q-A, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 6 of this Order enshrines that there shall be no abatement of a suit by reason of the death of either party between conclusion of hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. It cannot, therefore, be said that the awards passed are void being against a dead person also.
8. In the memos of appeals, awards have also been challenged on grounds other than enumerated in Section 96 (2), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly did not press them during his arguments.
9. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 271 of 1988, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Ram, is dismissed. The Appeal Nos. 154 of 1988 and 270 of 1988 are partly allowed and the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and interest thereon. To this extent, awards under challenge in these two appeals are modified.
10. The parties will bear their own costs in all the three appeals.