Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 114 (HP)

UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. v. BHAG SINGH

2004-06-01

A.K.GOEL

body2004
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Peculiar situation that has arisen in all these cases is that claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by respondents claiming compensation against Hans Raj Kanwar, owner of the vehicle, Rajesh Kumar who is driver and the petitioner Insurance Company. When the matter was pending before the learned Tribunal below, on 11.6.2003 and 3.7.2003 following orders were passed : "11.6.2003 Reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 filed. Copy supplied. An application for deleting the name of respondent No. 3 has been filed stating therein that the vehicle was not insured with respondent No. 3, hence their name be deleted from the array of the petition. Let reply to the application be filed on 3.7.2003. Sd/- MACT (I), Nahan" "8.7.2003 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has failed to produce the insurance policy, which clearly shows that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with respondent No. 3. Moreover, the name of respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has already been deleted from the array of the petition vide order dated 11.6.2003. Now to come up for rejoinder, if any and issues on 19.7.2003. Sd/- MACT (I), Nahan". 3. These orders are identical in all the cases. 4. After passing of order dated 3.7.2003 supra, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC was filed by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Hans Raj Kanwar for impleading the Insurance Company as a party again in all cases. 5. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that without issuing notice of such application, learned Tribunal below passed following order on 15.11.2003 in all those cases :— "15.11.2003 Present : Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamaljeet Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC filed. Copy given. The respondents want to implead the Insurance Company as one of the respondent on the ground that the respondents have paid the insurance money on 7.8.2000 as per proposal from photocopy of which has been appended with the application. According to the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 the policy has been issued by the Insurance Company on 14.8.2000 instead of 7.8.2000 on which date the amount was paid and was accepted by the Insurance Agent. According to the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 the policy has been issued by the Insurance Company on 14.8.2000 instead of 7.8.2000 on which date the amount was paid and was accepted by the Insurance Agent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the application on the ground that similar application was filed earlier which was already decided and the Insurance Company which was earlier impleaded was deleted. He has however, no objection if the present application is allowed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Let United India Insurance Company be impleaded as respondent No. 3. The file be completed and tagged with the main case file. Announced : 15.11.2003 Sd/- (L.N. Sharma) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Sirmaur District at Nahan." 6. After having been summoned, petitioner Insurance Company filed an application for recalling/review of the summoning order dated 1^.11.2003. Vide this application dated 16.2.2004, wherein all the facts were highlighted. Learned Tribunal below has passed the impugned order on 17.2.2004, which for ready reference is also extracted herein below : "17.2.2004 Present: Sh. Vaishwa Raj, Adv. Ld. Csl. for applicant/Insurance Company. Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Adv. Ld. Csl., for respondent/petitioner. Sh. Kamaljeet Sharma, Adv. Ld. Cs., for respondents No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has filed an application for review of summoning order dated 15.11.2003 on the ground that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and therefore, they are not necessary party. The learned counsel for the Insurance Co. also appended with the application the policy issued alongwith proposal form. He has stated that as the vehicle was not insured with them, hence the Insurance Company is not required to file reply. Moreover, according to him, no relief has been claimed from the Insurance Company by the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has pointed out that in para 8 they have very specifically stated that it is only Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company is just delaying the finalising of the claim petition by filing false applications which according to him is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has also appended proposal form according to which the vehicle was insured from 7.8.2000 to 6.8.2001. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has also appended proposal form according to which the vehicle was insured from 7.8.2000 to 6.8.2001. This needs clarification which can only be finalised as and when the parties are allowed to adduce evidence. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present application which is accordingly dismissed. However respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to file affidavit stating that the vehicle bearing No. HP-13-0210 was insured with Insurance Company as per proposal form on the date fixed. The file be completed and tagged with the main case file. Announced : 17.2.2004 Sd/- (L.N. Sharma), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P." 7. Before proceeding further in this case, it is appropriate and necessary to examine application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC filed by the petitioner for impleading Insurance Company. It is most unfortunate that in this application there is no mention or murmur regarding the order dated 3.7.2004 having been passed by the leaned Tribunal below. What is reason for this omission, the learned counsel for the owner was unable to explain to the court at the time of hearing of these cases. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in all these cases and for reasons to be recorded hereinafter on the basis of facts noted hereinabove and orders extracted in the proceeding paras, I am of the considered view that orders dated 15.11.2003 as well as 17.2.2004 both are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Tribunal below ignored its order dated 3.7.2003 when it passed the order dated 15.11.2003. This act was perpetuated by the Tribunal below in passing the order dated 17.2.2004. At the risk of repetition it may be appropriate to observe here that it is not a case where the Insurance Company was not a party during the course of the trial when the claim petition was originally filed. Rather the Insurance Company had admittedly been ordered to be deleted and thereafter how and for what reason it was felt necessary to implead it (Insurance Company) as a party, neither the order dated 15.11.2003 justifies it, nor subsequent order dated 17.2.2004. 9. Rather the Insurance Company had admittedly been ordered to be deleted and thereafter how and for what reason it was felt necessary to implead it (Insurance Company) as a party, neither the order dated 15.11.2003 justifies it, nor subsequent order dated 17.2.2004. 9. Leaving the matter here only and without saying anything further, all these petitions are allowed and as a result of it orders dated 15.11.2003 and 17.2.2004 in all these cases passed by the Tribunal below are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, parties are relegated to the stage of filing of impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. Insurance Company as well as claimants in the cases before the learned Tribunal below are free to file reply(s) if they so choose. Thereafter learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of the applications in all these cases filed by the owner for impleadment of the Insurance Company on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It is clarified that while disposing of such application(s) and proceeding further in the matter in all these cases, learned Tribunal below will examine and decide the matter without being in any manner prejudiced and/or influenced by anything said in this order which is meant only for limited purpose of disposing of these petitions.