Madhusudan And Anr. v. Smt. Premkunwar And Ors. — 1999 DIGILAW 1009 (MP)

JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. Appellants (owner and driver of the defending vehicle) have directed this appeal against the common award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Khargone in Claim Case Nos. 51/88 and 12/92 thereby allowing the application filed by Premkunwarbai and others and awarding compensation of Rs. 78,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.6.1988 appellant No. 1, as a result of rash and negligent driving of Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No. CII 2228 met with an accident resulting into death of one Chintaman, travelling on the rear seat of the same motor cycle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to 11 separately filed two claim petitions against the appellants and respondent No. 12 on the averment that Smt. Premkunwarbai is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Chintaman and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are her children whereas respondent No. 6 Shantabai also alleged that she is the wife of deceased Chintaman and respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are her children. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 and allowed the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and awarded compensation in their favour by the impugned award as indicated above. 3. Learned Tribunal while passing the award exonerated the respondent No. 12, Insurance Company from the payment of compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the award of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 4. On service of notice to respondent Nos. 6 to 11 they have filed cross-objection challenging dismissal of the claim petition filed by the said respondents. The said cross-objection was challenged on behalf of respondent No. 12 on the ground that they have no locus standi to file cross-objection in the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) against the co-defendants i.e. Insurance Company for holding Insurance Company also liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. The said cross-objection was challenged on behalf of respondent No. 12 on the ground that they have no locus standi to file cross-objection in the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) against the co-defendants i.e. Insurance Company for holding Insurance Company also liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants do not want to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that in view of the conditions of the insurance policy and the admissions made on behalf of respondent No. 12 the Insurance Company may also be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal. 6. As against this, the Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as the appellants are not challenging the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 rejecting their claim, is not maintainable, as it is only a, dispute between co-defendants on the point of liability of payment of compensation amount. 7. Considering the submissions of the Counsel and in view of the facts of the case, in my opinion, in this appeal the appellants, who are the defendants in the original claim case have made a prayer only against co-defendants i.e. Insurance 'Company holding him liable for the payment of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 who are original claimants of Claim Case No. 51/88 have no locus standi to file cross-objection challenging the award and compensation passed in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5 original claimants of Claim Case No. 12/92. Even otherwise, no one appeared in this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 to prosecute cross-objection filed on their behalf, as such I allow IA No. 4921/99 filed on behalf of respondent No. 12 and dismiss the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11. 8. Even otherwise, no one appeared in this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 to prosecute cross-objection filed on their behalf, as such I allow IA No. 4921/99 filed on behalf of respondent No. 12 and dismiss the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11. 8. On the point of holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, on perusal of record, it emerged that in reply to IA No. 660/99 filed by the appellants, the respondent No. 12 in their reply dated 6.7.1999 have admitted in so many words that Insurance Company admits the conditions contained in the original policy with regard to motor cycle involved in the accident and submitted that in view of conditions of the policy, a risk of pillion passenger travelling on the same motorcycle was also covered and as such the Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased Chintaman who expired in the alleged accident of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. CII 2228. 9. In view of the conditions of the policy which was filed in this Court on behalf of the appellants and admitted on behalf of respondent No. 12, respondent No. 12 Insurance Company is also held liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal alongwith the appellants severally and independently. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified only to the extent that the respondent No. 12 Insurance Company is also held liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally alongwith the appellants. The cross objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 stands dismissed. 11. There shall be no orders as to cost for this appeal as also the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11.