Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 865 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Singh v. Laljharo Devi

2014-08-08

RAKESH KUMAR

body2014
ORDER : Heard Sri Chandra Kant, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent no.1/ Claimant, Sri Ramadhar Singh, learned counsel for Respondent no.2/ owner of the vehicle i.e. TATA 407, bearing Registration No.BR-3/5815 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) and Sri Bimlesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of newly added Respondent no.3/ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as the “M.V. Act.”) against an order dated 13.03.2012 passed by learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara-cum- Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the” Claim Tribunal”) in M.V. Case No.18/2006. By the said order, the learned Claim Tribunal has allowed the petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act on behalf of the claimant, who is Respondent no.1 in the present appeal, and directed the appellant to pay Rs.25,000/- and rest amount of Rs.25,000/- has been directed to be paid by Respondent no.2/owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Short fact of the case is that on 27.01.2006, when son of Respondent no.1/ claimant, namely, Shashi Shekhar Singh was travelling on a Jeep, bearing Registration no.BR-3P/3233 (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant’s vehicle”), the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by the driver dashed the appellant’s Jeep from one side, in which son of the claimant received serious injury and while being carried to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. Of course, after the death, dead body was cremated without lodging F.I.R, subsequently a complaint petition was filed, which was referred to the police for its registration and , as such, an F.I.R. vide Nawanagar P.S. Case no.43/06 was registered and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. On the death in the vehicular accident, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in the year 2006. At belated stage claim petition was admitted and notices were directed to be issued. Though the appellant herein appeared before the court below, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear. However, finally paper publication was made and thereafter case was fixed for ex parte hearing. At belated stage claim petition was admitted and notices were directed to be issued. Though the appellant herein appeared before the court below, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear. However, finally paper publication was made and thereafter case was fixed for ex parte hearing. In the meanwhile, in the year 2010, a petition was filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act on behalf of the claimant claiming compensation on the principle of no fault. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant in claim case appeared and filed written statement disclosing therein that appellant’s vehicle was not at fault and no liability can be fastened on the appellant. It was further indicated that in any case, the appellant’s vehicle was under insurance cover of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the appellant for adding Insurance Company as party in the claim case. It has been argued that though the learned Claim Tribunal noticed the fact regarding filing of such application by the appellant, learned Claim Tribunal in a mechanical manner had directed the appellant as well as owner of the offending vehicle to pay Rs.25,000/- each to the claimant. He submits that since in the police case nothing was found against either driver or the appellant’s vehicle , there was no question for directing the appellant for making payment of Rs.25,000/-. It has further been argued that since the appellant’s vehicle was under insurance cover, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the said amount. 5. Sri Ramadhar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2/ owner of the offending vehicle submits that after the order passed by the Claim Tribunal, Respondent no.2 had filed a petition before the learned Claim Tribunal for recalling the order since the order was passed without hearing him, which was rejected and, thereafter, Respondent no.2 has filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No.7072 of 2013. 6. 6. Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant submits that in the case, accident had occurred in the year 2006 and immediately thereafter claim case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs and on one way or the other, the matter has been delayed for a long time, even though the order, whereby the petition under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was allowed , has been assailed in the present appeal, in which lower court record was also summoned. He submits that in any event the Claim Tribunal may be directed to take final decision in M.V. Case No.18/2006. 7. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The Court is of the opinion that without entering into merit of the case it would be appropriate to set aside the order 13.03.2012 passed by the Claim Tribunal in M.V. Case No.18/2006 due to the simple reason that once it was disclosed by the appellant that his vehicle was under insurance cover at the time of accident, it was necessary either for the claimant or the Tribunal to implead insurer of the offending vehicle as one of the parties. Moreover, in the case, police report suggests that during investigation negligence was found on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and, as such, the Claim Tribunal has committed serious error in allowing the petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Claim Tribunal in M.V. Case No.18/2006 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the Claim case filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act. It is made clear that learned Claim Tribunal, while proceeding with M.V. Case No.18/2006, which has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, may not be guided by any observation given by this Court. It is clarified that any observation/direction given in this appeal may not prejudice either of the parties. 9. With above observation, the appeal stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Claim Tribunal to proceed with the case and decide M.V. Case no.18/2006 expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment. 10. It is clarified that any observation/direction given in this appeal may not prejudice either of the parties. 9. With above observation, the appeal stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Claim Tribunal to proceed with the case and decide M.V. Case no.18/2006 expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment. 10. Office is directed to remit back lower court record forthwith as well as refund the statutory amount, which was deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the present appeal.