Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 189 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nathi

2005-01-20

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By these review petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code hereinafter) the applicant-appellant National Insurance Company Limited (for short the Insurance Company hereinafter) seeks review of common Judgment passed in Civil Misc. Appeals No. 570, 579, 581 and 582/1996 dated 03.05.2002. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By the Judgment dated 03.05.2002, the aforesaid civil misc. appeals challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (for short the Tribunal hereinafter) by a common Judgment and order dated 20.07.1996 in as many as 36 claims cases were dismissed by this Court. These appeals arose out of an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. RJJ 4296 by its driver Hanjilal which resulted in causing death of two persons namely Govind Ram and Bada and causing injuries to as many as 34 persons. The award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant Insurance Company on issues No. 3 and 5. 4. The aforesaid appeals came to be dismissed by this Court on the premise that issue No. 3 regarding liability of the Insurance Company was common in all 36 cases and since the Insurance Company challenged the finding on issue No. 3 only in five cases by filing appeals and allowed the finding on this issue to become final in remaining 31 cases, therefore, in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 1202 , it was held that it is not open for the Insurance Company to challenge the impugned award only in five cases. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that since the amount involved in other 31 cases was less than Rs. 10,000/-and in view of the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no appeal is maintainable against any award of a claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees, therefore, the award passed in other 31 cases was challenged by way of filing writ petitions before this Court. 10,000/-and in view of the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no appeal is maintainable against any award of a claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees, therefore, the award passed in other 31 cases was challenged by way of filing writ petitions before this Court. Learned Counsel further submits that though the writ petitions came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the amount awarded to the claimant is too trivial, however, while dismissing the writ petitions it was made clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions will not come in the way of Insurance Company in appeal filed against claimants where the amount awarded is more than Rs. 10,000/-. According to learned Counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that common issue No.3 was not challenged by the Insurance Company. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the victims were travelling in a goods vehicle, and, therefore, in view of Three Judge Bench decision of Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors., 2003 ACJ 1, the Insurance Company is not liable. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though it is now settled law that for death of or bodily injury to any passenger travelling in goods vehicle, the insurer would not be liable, but in view of the Three Judge Bench decision of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., 2004 ACJ 1, the Insurance Company is to satisfy the award in favour of third party at the first instance and then to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle. 8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. (Supra), Honble Apex Court observed as under:-"In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis a vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words any person must also be attributed having regard to the contest in which they have been used, i.e., a third party. (Supra), Honble Apex Court observed as under:-"In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis a vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words any person must also be attributed having regard to the contest in which they have been used, i.e., a third party. Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable, therefore." 9. Undisputedly in the instant case, the victims of the road accidents were travelling in the truck which is a vehicle meant for goods carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. In view of the settled position of law and the fact that issue No. 3 too was challenged in remaining 31 cases, it cannot be said that the applicant-appellant Insurance Company allowed the finding on issue No. 3 to touch finality by not challenging the order of the Tribunal in connected cases. In this view of the matter, the review petitions deserve to be allowed. 10. Consequently, the review petitions are allowed. The Judgment dated 03.05.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Appeals No. 570/1996, 579/1996, 581/1996 and 582/1996 is hereby recalled. The appeals are revived. List the aforesaid appeals for hearing before the Bench now hearing such matters. Stay applications stand disposed of .