Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 698 (RAJ)

Ranveer Singh v. National Insurance Co.

2016-05-18

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
Hon'ble BARDHAR, J.— Instant appeals have been filed by the appellants Ranveer Singh and Sadhu Singh under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and award dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Karanpur in MACT Case No. 3/97 (48/90) and 10/97 (47/90) respectively whereby, the learned Tribunal declared the proceedings to have abated against the respondents and dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants while going on motorcycle on 28.7.89 were hit by a vehicle Metador due to which the appellants sustained serious injuries and initially a claim petition was filed by the appellant claimants against the driver Inderjeet Singh and the Insurance Company but when the fact of Shiv Singh being the owner of the vehicle came to notice of the appellant, the appellants moved an application for impleading Shiv Singh as respondent in the claimants on 9.9.06. However, on the report of process server, it came to the notice that the owner Shiv Singh has expired upon which an application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Shiv Singh was filed by the appellant on 12.10.2001 and on the objection of the legal representatives of the owner of vehicle, the proceedings against the owner were ordered to be abated vide order dated 18.7.2002 and the proceedings continued against respondents Insurance Company. 3. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to the effect that since the proceedings against the owner have been abated, the proceedings against the insurance company is also liable to be abated since no liability can be fixed on the owner owning to his death and no cause of action for suing the Insurer exists. 4. Learned Tribunal after hearing rival contention of the parties, allowed the application filed by the respondents Insurance Company vide order dated 26.8.02 and declared the proceedings against the respondents to have abated and consequently dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim proceedings did not abate on account of death of owner of the vehicle inview of Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that Section 155 of the Act directs that the death of an insured does not bring about abatement of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim proceedings did not abate on account of death of owner of the vehicle inview of Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that Section 155 of the Act directs that the death of an insured does not bring about abatement of the proceedings. The appellants had tried to file an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased owner on record but the same was not allowed due to the objection raised by the Insurance Company and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not allowing legal representatives to be brought on record because same was necessary to continue the proceedings. It is further argued that even if the owner died during the pendency of the claim petition, the proceedings ought to have been continued and non-participation of the owner of the vehicle or his legal representatives does not vitiate the proceedings. He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shir Chandra & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh & Ors. reported in 1992 ACJ 747 and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of `United Insurance Co. Lt vs. Sakhamuri Venkayamma and others reported in 2007 ACJ 1085 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the proceedings were rightly abated by the learned Tribunal due to death of the owner as they are required to be granted indemnity from the liability of owner since no liability can be fixed on the owner owing to his death. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that owner of the vehicle died during the pendency of the claim proceedings and an application was sought to be filed for bringing the legal representatives of deceased owner on record but the said application was not allowed on the objection filed by the respondents and upon the application filed by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, the claim petition against the Insurance Company was also abated on account of death of the owner insured. In the opinion of this Court, Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that on the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has been issued occurs during pendency of the proceedings, it shall have no bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said even against the estate or against the insurer. The accident took place on 25.7.89 and the owner/insured Shir Singh is said to have expired in the year 1996 i.e. after happening of the accident. 9. Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under- "155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer." 10. In view of aforesaid statutory legal provision, the liability of the Insurance company would not come to end on account of death of the owner/insured after the happening of the event/accident or failure of claimants to bring the legal representatives of owner on record and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in declaring the proceedings to have abated against the respondents and dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants. 11. In view of above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order and award dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikaranpur in MACT Case No. 3/97 (48/90) and 10/97 (47/90) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikaranpur for deciding the claim petitions on merits afresh, in accordance with law.