Gujarat High Court
Vanitaben Vasantbhai Munjat vs Amarshibhai Pramjibhai Munjat on 10 June, 2022
C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8642 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to YES
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
5 CIRCULATE THIS JUDGEMENT TO ALL THE MOTOR YES
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS.
==========================================================
VANITABEN VASANTBHAI MUNJAT
Versus
AMARSHIBHAI PRAMJIBHAI MUNJAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 10/06/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] By way of this writ petition, the petitioners - original claimants have prayed for the following reliefs:
Page 1 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022
C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 "(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to pass an appropriate order to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morbi in application at Exh. 20 in MACP No.51/2018 and thereby passing direction to re-join the respondent no.2 herein as opponent no.2 in the MACP NO.51/2018 and decide claim petition on merits allowing the parties to lead sufficient evidence. (C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the proceedings of the learned Tribunal till the pendency of this application.
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice."
[2] Facts, in nutshell, enumerated as under:
[2.1] An unfortunate accident occurred on 31 st September 2017, wherein the deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat was driving a Scorpio car bearing registration No.GJ-3DG-8224 from Mitana - Chhatar village, in which, due to technical problem, fire took place and the deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat received serious burn injuries and subsequently, succumbed to those injuries.
[2.2] The petitioners - original claimants approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking, inter alia, compensation of Rs.15 Lakh for untimely death of deceased Vasant Premjibhai Munjat. Upon service of notice, the Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 respondent No.2 herein - original defendant No.2 - Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and submitted an application below Exhibit : 20 praying, inter alia, deletion from the claim petition mainly on the ground that the deceased is not a third party and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.
[2.3] The learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Main), Principal District Judge, Morbi, after having considered submissions of the respective parties, allowed the application at Exhibit : 20 vide its order dated 25 th February 2021 directing deletion of the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings.
[3] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners - original claimants have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
[4] I have heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2.
[5] Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable in the eyes of law and thereby the Tribunal has committed a serious error by deleting the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal could not have Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 deleted the Insurance Company at interim stage. He submitted that so as to ascertain the liability of the Insurance Company, proper evidence requires to be led before the Tribunal. According to Mr. Bhalodi, the claim petition cannot be decided in piecemeal. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature and the proceeding is summary in nature. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that at the time of deciding the claim petition, strict proof of the Evidence Act does not apply. Mr. Bhalodi also submitted that the policy in question was "Private Car Package Policy", wherein premium for "legal liability to paid driver", "PA cover for owner driver", and "unnamed PA cover for 7 persons" was paid. According to Mr. Bhalodi, therefore, the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company and thus, the Tribunal could not have, at interim stage, without leading evidence, deleted the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings.
[6] By making above submissions, Mr. Bhalodi has urged this Court to allow the present writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
[7] Per contra, Ms. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present writ petition contending that the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is perfectly justified being legal in nature. Ms. Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Pathak submitted that the deceased cannot be said to be a third party and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deleted the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings. Ms. Pathak further submitted that in the claim petition, there is no specific plea that the deceased was a paid driver of the registered owner. However, it is only contended that the deceased was a driver. Thus, according to Ms. Pathak, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal with a dubious and fabricated story that the deceased was a paid driver. According Ms. Pathak, the claim put forward by the claimants are got up one and attempted to receive claim under the guise of the insurance policy by showing the deceased as paid driver of the owner, who is the real brother of the deceased. Ms. Pathak submitted that the Insurance Company has only received premium of Rs.100 towards "PA cover for owner driver" and thereby, benefit of risk available to only insured i.e. the owner and in the present case, the owner driver is not the deceased and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate any other person than the owner driver. Ms. Pathak, therefore, submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly deleted the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings. [8] Ms. Pathak, with a view to strengthen her submissions, have relied upon the judgement of this High Court delivered by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Bajaj Aliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Bhavnagar Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 vs. Jitendrabhai Thakarsibhai Vadhaiya and others [Special Civil Application No.15533 of 2016 decided on 8th December 2016]. [9] By making above submissions, Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company has prayed this Court to dismiss the claim petition in the larger interest of justice. [10] I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the materials produced on record. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties except what have been stated hereinabove.
[11] Having heard the submissions and having gone through the materials produced on record, the following short question falls for the consideration of this Court:
(i) whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting / exonerating the Insurance Company at interim stage, without leading evidence, on the ground that the deceased was not falling within the purview of third party?
[12] So as to decide the aforesaid question, first of all, some admitted facts require to be culled out viz.:
Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022
C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
(i) As per the claim petition, the deceased was, by profession, a driver.
(ii) The car owned by real brother and the deceased was under
the employment of his brother.
(iii) The policy in question was a package policy, whereby the Insurance Company has received premium on various heads such as "legal liability to paid driver", "PA cover for owner driver", unnamed PA cover for 7 persons of Rs.1 Lakh each".
(iv) At the time when the accident took place, the policy was very much in existence.
(v) The accident occurred because of technical fault and not due to anyone's negligence.
[13] While keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, it would also be apt to take note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh and others vs. New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.2164 of 2004 decided on 3rd August 2010]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"5. The case of the claimants appears to be that additional premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver of the vehicle and in the policy issued by the Insurance Company, in para 5, persons or classes of persons entitled to drive includes the insured and accordingly Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 the Insurance Company is liable. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has denied its liability principally on the ground that deceased being owner of the vehicle is not a `third party'. Section 166 of the Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made, inter alia, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from the accident. Section 169 makes a provision that the Claims Tribunal shall follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in sub-section (2) of Section 169 and the rules. The whole object of summary procedure is to ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. The inquiry under Section 168 and the summary procedure that the Claims Tribunal has to follow do not contemplate the controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application. The objection raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case is dependent on determination of the effect of the additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other terms of the policy including terms of the policy contained in para 5. Since all issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in light of the evidence that may be let in by the parties and not in piecemeal, we do not think it proper to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. Suffice it to say that matter needs to be sent back to the Claims Tribunal."
[14] It would also be important to note the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma and others vs. New Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2021 ACJ 17, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non- examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC), wherein this Court reiterated that:
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC).""(emphasis supplied) [15] This High Court, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakore and others reported in 2006 ACJ 2759, has held as under:
"7. It has to be kept in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of Legislation and the procedure envisaged under Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 it is a summary one, strict Rules of evidence are therefore, not applicable to proceedings under the Act. If any document is produced during the course of proceedings, the genuineness and probative value of which is not in doubt and which has not been proved to be false then, the Tribunal can look into the same and come to a just and reasonable conclusion on its basis. In the present appeal, it is not disputed that the Neuro Surgeon had given a certificate of permanent disability in favour of the claimant. Just because the said Doctor had retired and could not be examined,due to want of correct address in order to summon him, the contention that Exh.28/17 and Exh.27/18, (disability certificates) cannot be read in evidence because the Doctor has not been examined to prove them on record, cannot be accepted. The appellant has not come up with any evidence to show that the said Certificates are not genuine ones. This is also not contended before us. In this view of the matter, since there is ample material on record pointing to the permanent physical disability suffered by the respondent No.1-claimant, the view taken by the Tribunal regrading the medical aspect of the case and awarding of compensation thereupon, cannot be faulted. It is sufficient that there should be material on record on which the Tribunal has determined the compensation to be awarded, which should be just and reasonable. In the present case there is material on record to support the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.Tribunal. To take a hyper-technical view and apply strict rules of evidence as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, in claims under the M.V.Act, would amount to defeating the very object and purpose behind the enactment of this beneficial Statute, which is to provide immediate relief in the form of just and reasonable compensation to unfortunate victims of motor accidents or their legal heirs, as the case may be."
Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022
C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 [16] Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this High Court and keeping in mind the facts of the present case, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in deleting / exonerating the Insurance Company at the interim stage by considering the fact that the deceased driver was not falling within the ambit and scope of third party without leading any evidence nor framing issue whatsoever in nature. I say so because in the peculiar fact that the deceased was a driver of his own real brother and thereby, the Insurance Company raised the contention as to lodgement of false and fabricated claim on assumption that the real brother cannot be under employment. Such contention cannot be accepted without any contrary evidence on record. Even otherwise, if the contention with regard to false and fabricated claim is raised, in that event, it was an obligation on the part of the Tribunal to have framed the necessary issue and further allowed necessary parties to lead evidence instead of deleting / exonerating the Insurance Company. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal could not have, on the basis of mere averments made by the Insurance Company, deleted the Insurance Company from the claim proceedings in such a fashion. According to this Court, the approach of the Tribunal is said to be the most casual and contrary to the provisions of a beneficial legislation. At least, the Tribunal ought to have considered the policy, which was produced on record and was not disputed by the Insurance Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Company. A bare perusal of the policy in question would reveal that the Insurance Company has accepted the premium on various heads. One of the important heads for the purpose of deciding the claim petition, was to "legal liability to paid driver". The Insurance Company has accepted the premium, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured, prima facie, exists. Thus, the Tribunal should not have committed haste in deleting the Insurance Company at interim stage and it should have decided the aspect of liability at the time of passing an award. In my view, the Tribunal cannot decide liability aspect at an interim stage, that too without framing necessary issue to that effect. Thus, the Tribunal should not have decided the question of liability in piecemeal. In other words, everything can be decided in one go.
[17] Apart from the aforesaid, the Tribunal also grossly overlooked the policy which was on record. In the policy, it appears that the Insurance Company has also accepted premium under the head of "unnamed PA cover for 7 persons". Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify insured cannot be, prima facie, said to be nothing. In my considered opinion, the Insurance Company has accepted premium under various heads, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from the liability at the threshold. It is for the Tribunal to decide the aspect of liability or no liability and if liable, then the extent Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 of liability at the time of passing final award.
[18] So far as the other contention raised by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company with regard to proper pleadings is concerned, the same is not acceptable in view of the settled position of law that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the procedure envisaged under it is a summary in nature and strict rule of evidence and pleadings are not applicable. Even otherwise, in the claim petition, it has already been averred that the deceased was a driver by vocation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no specific pleading at all. [19] So far as reliance placed by the Insurance Company in the case of Bajaj Aliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) is concerned, in my considered opinion, facts of that case and facts of the case on hand are materially different. In the said case, the vehicle was a motor cycle owned by another person and was being driven by the deceased. Whereas, in the case on hand, the car was being driven by the deceased in a capacity of a driver, for which the Insurance Company has received premium. Thus, in my considered opinion, as stated above, the Insurance Company cannot be deleted or exonerated at interim stage without recording of any evidence.
[20] In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question raised by the Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022 C/SCA/8642/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Insurance Company before the Tribunal with regard to its liability requires to be adjudicated upon in the course of adjudication of the main claim petition. It requires to be decided on merits on the basis of defence which the claimants may raise. The entire issue would be the matter of evidence and thereby, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal should not have decided at the interim stage. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. I answer the question accordingly.
[21] Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25th February 2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Morbi, below Exhibit : 20 is hereby set aside. It is, however, clarified that this order will have no bearing on the merits of the case of either side. The Tribunal shall proceed to adjudicate and decide the claim petition on the basis of the evidence before it in accordance with the legal parameters as may be applicable.
[22] It is clarified that this Court has treated this petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has exercised supervisory jurisdiction to correct the error committed by the Tribunal.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) CHANDRESH Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 10 21:39:54 IST 2022