Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1060 (BOM)

Jalaram Timber Depot v. Anthony Mascarenhas

2010-07-27

N.A.BRITTO

body2010
JUDGMENT N.A. Britto, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ petitions are filed by respondent No.2 in Claim Petition No: 110/2007, and are directed against Order dated 12-6-2008 as well as Order dated 27-11-2008. 3. By the second Order, the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Margao has declined to review the first Order. 4. The claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 herein as claimant on account of the death of his wife. The claimant was driving his motorcycle with his wife as the pillion rider. On application of brakes, the wife fell down and was overrun by pick-up having registration No. GA-02-T -8344 causing her death. The said pick-up was driven by respondent No.1. respondent No. 2 was added to the claim petition I as the owner of the pick-up, and respondent No.3 as its insurer. 5. The accident took place on 2.1.2007. By Order dated 18.12.2007. respondent No. 3 herein was joined as the owner of the vehicle as respondent No. 2(a). The said Order has not been challenged. It can be seen that the said Order was made prior to the impugned Orders herein. There is no dispute that as on the date of the accident, the petitioner herein i.e. respondent No. 2 in the claim petition had transferred the said vehicle in favour of the said respondent No. 2(a) Braz Dias and not only that, the said Braz Dias had obtained an insurance policy with respondent No.3. the insurer. 6. There can be no dispute that in relation to the driver (respondent No.1), the owner [respondent No. 2(a)] and the insurer (respondent No.3), the wife of the claimant was a third party and respondent No.2(a) had insured his vehicle with respondent No.3 covering third party risks. In such a situation, the learned M.A.C.T. could not have deleted respondent No. 3 even before the stage of framing of issues. The impugned Order dated 12.6.2008 has been passed without application of mind to the facts of the case i.e. without taking note of the fact that it is the pick-up which was insured with respondent No. 3 and not the motorcycle driven by the claimant. 7. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned Orders are hereby set aside, with no order as to costs. 8. Parties to appear before the learned M.A.C.T. on 13.8.2010 at 10.00 a.m.