Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1841 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keku Devi

2013-10-21

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 27.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra ('Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the legal representatives of deceased Rawata Ram and Hema Ram and to the injured Bhanwara Ram. 2. The applications for compensation ('application') were filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') with the averments that on 6.11.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., both the deceased and the injured were travelling in a PICK-UP bearing registration No.RJ-04-G-1548 being driven by driver Dhuda Ram, when the said vehicle collided with a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-21-1R-7724, which resulted in grievous injuries to the occupants of the PICK-UP Van including Bhanwara Ram, to which Rawata Ram and Hema Ram succumbed. The claimants claimed various sums on account of death of Rawata Ram and Hema Ram and for the injuries suffered by Bhanwara Ram. Driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor only were impleaded as parties. 3. Replies to the applications were filed by the Insurance Company and non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the PICK-UP Van was questioned. The Insurance Company also raised other pleas. 4. It may also to be noticed that the appellant-Insurance Company also filed application during the pendency of the applications under Order I, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of owner, driver and insurer of the Pick-Up Van. Its application was rejected by the Tribunal observing that the issue in this regard has already been framed, which would take care of the said application. 5. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act came to the conclusion that the vehicle tractor was involved in the accident and citing certain judgments came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the owner and insurer of the PICK-UP Van were necessary parties to the claim petition. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- for death of Rawata Ram, Rs. 4,44,000/- for death of Hema Ram and Rs. 28,245/- for the injuries suffered by Bhanwara Ram along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the application. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- for death of Rawata Ram, Rs. 4,44,000/- for death of Hema Ram and Rs. 28,245/- for the injuries suffered by Bhanwara Ram along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the application. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the owner and Insurer of the PICK-UP Van, in which the deceased and the injured were traveling, were necessary parties to the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act and in absence thereof, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed, though for decision of a claim under Section 163A of the Act, the negligence of the vehicles involved is of no consequence, but then the very fact that more than one vehicle are involved in the accident, the same would effect the ultimate liability of the owner / insurance company, therefore, the owner and insurer of all the vehicles involved are necessary parties, the Tribunal has deducted ¼th amount towards personal expenses relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(6) SCC 121 , which is contrary to the scheme of Section 163A and Second Schedule of the Act as under the said provision, the compensation has to be awarded strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule and the schedule provides for ⅓rd deduction on account of personal expenses, which cannot be varied. However, learned counsel fairly conceded that ⅓rd deduction in place of ¼th deduction would not involve substantial amount and the said issue may be kept open. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that despite his best efforts he could not find support or any precedent holding the presence of the owners and insurers of all the vehicles involved in an accident for an application under Section 163A of the Act as necessary parties. 9. This Court in Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. v. Anand Prakash Malviya & Anr., SBCMA No. 4351/2011, decided on 3.10.2013 while considering a similar controversy held as under:- "Coming to the question of requirement to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the truck and they being necessary parties to the said application on account of involvement of more than one vehicle is concerned. v. Anand Prakash Malviya & Anr., SBCMA No. 4351/2011, decided on 3.10.2013 while considering a similar controversy held as under:- "Coming to the question of requirement to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the truck and they being necessary parties to the said application on account of involvement of more than one vehicle is concerned. There is nothing in Section 163A to show that when two vehicles are involved, the claim must be staked against the owner and insurer of both the vehicles as in the case of Section 140 of the Act. The option is of the claimants to claim against the owner / insurer of either or both the vehicles. A claim under Section 163A lies only against the owner of the vehicle and the authorized insurer and it does not lie against the driver unless the driver is the owner also. The option of the claimants is not in any way restricted by language of Section 163A of the Act." 10. From the above judgment of this Court, the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is no more res integra and it cannot be said that the presence of owner and insurer of the pick-up Van was necessary for adjudication of the application under Section 163A of the Act. 11. So far as issue relating to deduction for personal expenses in an application under Section 163A of the Act is concerned, looking to the submissions made and meagre amount involved, keeping the said issue open to be considered by this Court in an appropriate case, the same does not call for any interference in the present case. 12. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, there is no substance in these appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******