Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 340 (GAU)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bulu Das

2019-03-13

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. This appeal under section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended (herein after referred to as the Act, in short) is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur (the Claims Tribunal, in short) in MACT Case No. 79/2012. By the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015, the Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant for the death caused to her son in an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles that occurred on 19.11.2012 along with interest thereon @7.5% per annum from the date of the order till its realization. 2. Be it stated that 2 (two) vehicles were involved in the accident - one vehicle bearing registration No. AS-07/C-3680 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bolero Pick-up Van", for convenience) and the other bearing registration No. AS-07/E-2086 (hereinafter referred to as "the Hero Honda Motorcycle", for convenience). The Claims Tribunal, apportioning the liability in view of the offer made by the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van and acceptance of the said offer by the claimant, had further ordered that the said liabilities were to be borne by the insurers of the two vehicles involved in the accident - Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. for the Bolero Pick-up Van and New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the Hero Honda Motorcycle to the extent of Rs. 4,90,000/- and Rs. 4,10,000/- respectively. The Claims Tribunal by another order dated 30.06.2015 had further ordered that as the said offer of settlement of Rs. 4,90,000/- offered by the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. was accepted by the respondent No. 1-claimant, the balance amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- along with the interest would be satisfied by the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle, New India Assurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein. The insurers were asked to deposit the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal within 2 (two) months from the date of the order. 3. 4,10,000/- along with the interest would be satisfied by the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle, New India Assurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein. The insurers were asked to deposit the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal within 2 (two) months from the date of the order. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the claim application are that on 19.11.2012, the son of the respondent No. 1-claimant (hereinafter also referred to as the claimant and/or the respondent No. 1), Bubul Das @ Babul Das was proceeding from Harmutty side to Bandardewa side as a pillion rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle with one Biswajit Das by the National Highway. When they were so proceeding, the Bolero Pick-up Van coming from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Hero Honda Motorcycle at a place on the National Highway near Harmutty Forest Office. As a result of the said accident, both the rider and the pillion rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle sustained serious injuries on their persons and both of them died instantaneously on the spot. In connection with the said accident, initially Harmutty Out Post registered General Diary Entry No. 293/2012 on 19.11.2012. Thereafter, a police case being Laluk Police Case No. 194/2012 under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) was registered against the driver of the Bolero Pick-up Van. The Post-Mortem Examination of the deceased, Bubul Das @ Babul Das was carried out on 20.11.2012 at North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. 4. Claiming compensation for the said death of the deceased, Late Bubul Das @ Babul Das, the mother as the claimant instituted a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur under section 166 read with section 140 of the Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and also Rs. 50,000/- towards No-Fault Liability respectively. The driver, the owner and the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van were impleaded as opposite party No. 1, opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 respectively. The owner and the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle were impleaded as opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 5 respectively. 5. The said claim application was registered and numbered as MACT Case No. 79/2012. On institution of MACT Case No. 79/2012, notices were issued to all the opposite parties. The owner and the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle were impleaded as opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 5 respectively. 5. The said claim application was registered and numbered as MACT Case No. 79/2012. On institution of MACT Case No. 79/2012, notices were issued to all the opposite parties. On receipt of notices, all the opposite parties appeared before the Claims Tribunal and contested the proceedings by filing respective written statements. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed 3 (three) number of issues: "1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the vehicles bearing Registration No. AS-07/C-3680 (Bolero PickUp Van) and bearing Registration No. AS-07/E-2086 (Hero Honda Motorcycle) causing death of Babul Das? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for? 3. What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?" 6. During the course of proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, 3 (three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants' side. The claimants' side also exhibited 4 (four) number of documents - (i) Ext. 1 :- Accident Information Report, (ii) Ext. 2 :- Post-Mortem Examination Report, (iii) Ext. 3 :- Salary Certificate. Though the opposite parties did not adduce evidence on their behalf, the witnesses from the claimants' side were duly cross-examined by them. 7. On the basis of evidence led through the course of proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal had assessed the compensation for the death of the deceased that should be payable to the claimant at Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal had accepted the salary of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month on the basis of the evidence of C.W. 1 :- the claimant, C.W. 2 : Sri Pradip Sarma, Proprietor of M/s. R.S. Drugs Distributors as the employer of the deceased and Ext. 3. The annual salary was taken as Rs. 1,20,000/- and making deduction of 50% from the same as the deceased was a bachelor, the Claim Tribunal assessed annual loss of dependency at Rs. 60,000/-. Adopting a multiplier of 14, the Claim Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount of Rs. 8,40,000/-. By making additions of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection respectively, the Claims Tribunal arrived at the total compensation amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 8. 60,000/-. Adopting a multiplier of 14, the Claim Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount of Rs. 8,40,000/-. By making additions of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection respectively, the Claims Tribunal arrived at the total compensation amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 8. The Claims Tribunal had observed that as the fatal accident took place due to the composite negligence on the part of the driver of the Hero Honda Motorcycle and the driver of the Bolero Pick-Up Van, the owners, the drivers and the insurers of both the vehicles were to share the liability for the above amount of compensation. The Claims Tribunal had observed that between the 2 (two) vehicles, the Bolero Pick-up Van was the heavy vehicle and the Hero Honda Motorcycle was the lighter vehicle. Accordingly, the quantum of negligence of the heavy vehicle would be higher than the lighter vehicle. It was further observed that the claimant filed a petition No. 336/2015 on 23.06.2015 before the Claims Tribunal stating that the claimant had settled her claim with the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van at an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- outside the Court and with the said amount, the claimant, as stated in the said petition, was fully satisfied with the compensation offered by the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van. The Claims Tribunal had further observed that in view of the above payment of Rs. 4,90,000/- out of the compensation amount assessed at Rs. 9,00,000/-, the balance amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- remained to be paid to the claimant. The said amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- was directed to be paid by the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. It does not transpire from the records that the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle had made negotiation and reached any kind of settlement with the claimant like the settlement arrived by the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van with the claimant. Aggrieved by the said direction to pay an amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- by the Claims Tribunal attributing contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Hero Honda Motorcycle, this instant appeal has been preferred by the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle as the appellant. 9. I have heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Ms. Sunita Das Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant. 9. I have heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Ms. Sunita Das Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant. The notices on the other respondents had been accepted to be complete, as per the order dated 20.06.2012. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, at the very beginning, that it is the finding of the Claims Tribunal as regards contributory negligence on the part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle in the accident which has been assailed in the instant appeal without mounting any challenge to the manner in which the Claims Tribunal had assessed the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant has submitted that the amount awarded against the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle was just and proper and was on the basis of appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. The issues that have arisen for consideration for the this Court are :- firstly, whether from the evidence on record, it could have been possible on the part of the Claims Tribunal to reach a finding that there was any kind of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Hero Honda Motorcycle which contributed to the accident and, secondly, if it is held that the Hero Honda Motorcycle had contributed to some extent to the accident, whether the appellant i.e. the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle can be held liable to satisfy the award, if any, since there is no evidence that the policy of insurance of the Motorcycle was a Comprehensive/Package Policy. 12. In order to find out the answers to the above issues, it is necessary to examine and appreciate the nature of evidence led before the Claims Tribunal. In view of the limited nature of challenge on behalf of the appellant, as out lined above, it appears to be not essential for this Court to examine any further as regards the assessment of compensation made by the Claims Tribunal in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection from the other parties in the claim application. 13. The claimant had examined herself as the claimant No. 1 and exhibited the documents, mentioned herein above. 13. The claimant had examined herself as the claimant No. 1 and exhibited the documents, mentioned herein above. In her evidence as C.W. 1, she deposed that on 19.11.2012, her son along with Biswajit Das was coming from Harmutty side to Bandardewa side on the Hero Honda Motorcycle with her son as the pillion rider. It was at about 9.-0 p.m., Biswajit Das parked the Hero Honda Motorcycle near the Forest Range Office, Harmutty on the National Highway to attend to the call of nature and her son stood by the side of the Motorcycle. After sometime, after starting the motorcycle when they started to proceed very slowly the Bolero Pick-up Van coming from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed dashed the Hero Honda Motorcycle and as a result of the same, both the rider as well as the pillion rider died instantaneously at the spot. During the cross-examination made on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, she admitted that she did not witness the incident. She stated that Biswajit Das was riding the Hero Honda Motorcycle at the time of the accident. She denied the suggestion that she stated the details of the accident falsely. She stated when she was cross-examined on behalf of opposite party No. 3 that both Biswajit Das as well as her son knew to ride a Motorcycle. 14. C.W. 2 deposed as an employer of the deceased exhibiting his trade licence and other documents in connection with his proprietorship concern, M/s. R.S. Drugs Distributors and did not state anything about the manner how the accident had occurred. He further deposed that he did not see the occurrence of the accident. In such view of the matter, it is not necessary to discuss his evidence to decide the issue of contributory negligence. 15. C.W. 3, Kamal Mahanta deposed, in his examination in-chief, that at about 9-40 p.m. on 19.11.2012, he was going from Bandardewa to his home at Harmutty by his Alto car. When he reached near the Forest Range Office, he noticed in the flashlights of his Alto car that a motorcycle was parked facing Bandardewa side and one person was standing near the Motorcycle. After sometime, another person came near the parked motorcycle and sat on the driving seat. When he reached near the Forest Range Office, he noticed in the flashlights of his Alto car that a motorcycle was parked facing Bandardewa side and one person was standing near the Motorcycle. After sometime, another person came near the parked motorcycle and sat on the driving seat. He started the motorcycle and the other person sat on the motorcycle as the pillion rider. At that moment, the Bolero Pick-up Van, overtaking the vehicle of C.W. 3 and proceeding at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, both the riders of the motorcycle were thrown out of the motorcycle and both died instantaneously on the spot. The people from the neighborhood came to the spot and informed the police who took the dead bodies to the Police Station. He further stated that he came to know about the details of the 2 (two) persons, later on, as Babul Das and Biswajit Das. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In his cross-examination, C.W. 3 categorically stated that he had seen the accident with his own eyes in the flashlights of his Alto car. He stated that after attending the call of nature, when the deceased tried to proceed in the motorcycle the accident took place. He reiterated that the Bolero Pick-up Van overtook him and dashed the motorcycle when it was proceeding from Harmutty side to Bandardewa side. He further stated that the Bolero Pick-up Van was running at a very high speed. The road at the place of accident was in a bad condition and vehicles were to be plied at a slow speed. As the accident had happened at night there was less people on the road. He was driving his own car. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely. He further stated that the motorcycle was running at the time of incident. 16. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. 16. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. It is well settled law in case of composite negligence that liability is joint and several and that the Claims Tribunal shall pass a composite decree against the owners of both the vehicles. In case all the joint tort-feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Claims Tribunal to determine inter-se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. The victim herein admittedly was not riding the Hero Honda Motorcycle but was a pillion-rider. 17. In the process of determination of inter-se extent of composite negligence of the drivers, the Claims Tribunal had observed that there was no cross-examination of C.W. 3 on behalf of the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. But on perusal of the records of MACT Case No. 79/2012 it is seen that there was cross-examination of C.W. 3 on behalf of opposite party No. 3 i.e. the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. Prior to examination by the said opposite party, the said witness, during his cross-examination made on behalf of the opposite parties defending the cause of the Bolero Pick-up Van, had categorically testified that he had seen the accident with his own eyes in the flashlights of his Alto car. He testified that the Bolero Pick-up Van overtook his vehicle and dashed the motorcycle running at a very high speed. The categorical testimony of C.W. 3 was to the effect that the Bolero Pick-up Van by proceeding at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. In presence of such testimonies and failure on the part of the opposite parties defending the cause of the Bolero Pick-up Van to elicit anything in respect of fault on the part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle, such observation on the part of the Claims Tribunal does not go to fix the liability on the part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle and consequently, on its rider. The Claims Tribunal had observed that as the accident occurred as a result of collision when both the vehicles were in running condition, hence both the insurers of the vehicles were liable to pay compensation. 18. From the evidence of C.W. 3 it is clear that he was an eye-witness to the accident. His evidence as regards the manner of the accident could not be dislodged and discredited by any of the opposite parties by way of any contrary evidence. No rebuttal evidence was led by any of the parties to substantiate the allegation that there was lack of due care on the part of the rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. The rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle had also died instantaneously on the spot due to the accident but the driver of the Bolero Pick-up Van who could be the best witness to depose as regards the manner in which the accident had happened, had chosen not to enter the witness box and to depose even after filing of written statement. It further transpires that the owner and the driver of the Bolero Pick-up Van did not cross-examine C.W. 3. From the Accident Information Report in Form 54 (Ext. -1) it could be seen that the police case, Laluk Police Station Case No. 194/2012 was registered against the driver of the Bolero Pick-up Van under section 279/304A, IPC. When fact of the institution of the police case was not denied by any of the opposite parties, the matter of contributory negligence cannot be based on conjectures and surmises just because the collision took place between two vehicles coming from opposite directions. The fact of contributory negligence has to be pleaded and proved. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the finding on the part of the Claims Tribunal as regards contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle and attributing liability to the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle is not based on evidence on record. In view of the above, the said finding as regards contributory negligence on the part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle is not acceptable and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. In view of the above, the said finding as regards contributory negligence on the part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle is not acceptable and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. It transpires that when the proceedings of MACT Case No. 79/2012 was pending before the Claims Tribunal, a joint compromise petition vide Petition No. 332/2015 dated 19.06.2015 was filed before the Claims Tribunal wherein it was mentioned that the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. and the claimant arrived at an compromise out of the court and the claimant had agreed to compromise the said proceeding pending the before the Claims Tribunal at a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- inclusive of all expenses in respect of the claim made in respect of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 19.11.2012. It further mentioned that the said sum would be full and final settlement and the claimant shall not claim any interest thereon nor the claimant or any of the legal representatives shall claim any sort of compensation from the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. in respect of the death caused by the said accident. When the said petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal on 19.06.2015, the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. sought time to argue the matter and the Claims Tribunal fixed the case on 23.06.2015 for argument. On 23.06.2015, the Claims Tribunal heard the arguments and took note of the fact that the claimant had filed a Petition No. 336/2015 dated 23.06.2015 wherein the claimant stated the claimant was fully satisfied with the amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- offered by the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. The Claims Tribunal had posted the case on 30.06.2015 and thereafter on 30.06.2015, the judgment and award was rendered in the aforesaid terms, as indicated above. In the judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal took note of the aforesaid fact of joint compromise and saddled the liability for the remaining amount of compensation Rs. 4,10,000/- with the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. The Claims Tribunal while apportioning the liability between the two vehicles, had observed as under :- "20. In the judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal took note of the aforesaid fact of joint compromise and saddled the liability for the remaining amount of compensation Rs. 4,10,000/- with the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. The Claims Tribunal while apportioning the liability between the two vehicles, had observed as under :- "20. As the fatal accident took place due to composite negligence of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-07/E-2086 as well as Bolero Pick-Up Van bearing registration No. AS-07/C-3680, the owners, drivers and insurer of both the vehicles are to share the liability of the above amount of compensation found due to the claimant. Thus, it is a collision between a motor cycle and a Bolero Pick-Up Van which is a heavy vehicle, the quantum of negligence of a heavy vehicle is higher than the lighter vehicle. O.P. No. 5, the insurer of motor cycle contested the claim by stating that the amount of compensation should be apportioned in proportion to the fault part of each vehicle if there was contributory negligence of both the driver of the vehicles. 21. Further the petition No. 336/15 dtd. 23.06.2015 shows that the claimant of the proceeding came to settle her claim at an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- with O.P. No. 3 Bajaj Allianz GIC Co. Ltd. outside the Court, with regard to the heavy vehicle and with this amount, according to her, she is fully satisfied in the said settlement as offered by the abovementioned O.P. No. 3. Thus, after the above payment of compensation remains Rs. 4,10,000/- to pay by the O.P. No. 5, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as compensation award to the claimant with regard to the lighter vehicle i.e. motor cycle which the claimant is entitled for." 21. The provision of section 166 of the Act provides, inter-alia, that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which is found to be just. The Claims Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which is found to be just. If the claim application is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, it is to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It may also be necessary to find out that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurer liable to make the payment to the legal representatives of the deceased. It is also settled position that it is not necessary in a proceeding under the Act to go by any rules of pleadings or evidence. Section 166 of the Act speaks about just compensation and it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to try to arrive at the said finding irrespective of the fact as to whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. The principle governing grant of compensation in death cases is to place the claimant in the identical position in financial terms as the claimant was in before the accident. Section 168 of the Act casts a duty upon Claims Tribunal to award "just compensation" and a party cannot be deprived of from getting just compensation in case the claimant is able to make out a case. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has reached a finding that the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant for the death of her son in the accident is Rs. 9,00,000/-. Thus, the said amount of compensation must be received by the claimant. In the absence of any finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, as has been held above, there cannot be any reduction of the said amount of compensation and the same is payable by the owner of the offending vehicle which in the instant case is the owner of the Bolero Pick-Up Van. Since on the date of the accident, the Bolero Pick-Up Van was under insurance coverage of a valid and effective policy of insurance issued by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., the owner is entitled to be indemnified by the said insurer. In such view of the matter, discussion on the other issue appears unnecessary. 22. Since on the date of the accident, the Bolero Pick-Up Van was under insurance coverage of a valid and effective policy of insurance issued by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., the owner is entitled to be indemnified by the said insurer. In such view of the matter, discussion on the other issue appears unnecessary. 22. In the instant case, the number of parties involved in the proceedings can be broadly placed into three groups. The claimant is one side. The other two sides are the driver, the owner and the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van on one part and on the other part, the rider, the owner and the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. Since both the vehicles were under coverage of insurance under valid and effective policies of insurance, the owners were liable to be indemnified by the insurers provided there were adherence to the terms and conditions of the policies. The subject of indemnification in respect of the owner of the Hero Honda Motorcycle by the insurer, in case of any finding of contributory negligence on the part of its rider, is also subject to the issue whether the policy was an Act policy or a Package policy. Assuming that both the vehicles were covered under the Package policies, the amount of compensation shall have to be paid by the insurers of both the vehicles to the extent each is at fault in the event of finding of contributory negligence. But in the instant case, as has been held above, the Bolero Pick-Up Van was solely liable for the accident. Situated thus, whether such a outside the court settlement with the claimant accepting liability only to a limited extent would enable the parties defending the cause of the Bolero Pick-Up Van to escape from the liability of paying the entire compensation and would bind the third party like the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. 23. The joint compromise petition dated 19.06.2015 was between the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. and the claimant. The insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. was not a party to the said joint compromise petition dated 19.06.2015. 23. The joint compromise petition dated 19.06.2015 was between the insurer of the Bolero Pick-up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. and the claimant. The insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. was not a party to the said joint compromise petition dated 19.06.2015. The Claims Tribunal itself had held that the contention of the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle was that the amount of compensation should be apportioned in proportion to the extent of fault on the part of each vehicle if there was contributory negligence of both the driver of the vehicles. Thus, a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle was the condition precedent for saddling the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle with a part of the liability. The Claims Tribunal did not make any effort to find out as to whether there was contributory negligence and if yes, what were the extents of negligence on the part of each of the vehicle? It merely observed that heavier the vehicle the higher the quantum of negligence. 24. There is another relevant aspect. Bilateral settlement in a proceeding where, broadly, three parties were involved is not a settlement in the proper sense. Where three parties were in the proceeding, then if any settlement was to be arrived at there should be a trilateral settlement. The claimant in the instant case cannot be placed at a equal footing with the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van as the claimant here i.e., the mother cannot be assumed to have a equal negotiating power. There is no reason to believe that the resulting compromise is just and proper since the settlement was arrived at the fag end of the proceeding i.e. after the closure of evidence and just prior to the delivery of the judgment and award. There is reason to believe that by such settlement, the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van found the settlement more attractive than the risks of litigation. By arriving at the settlement with the claimant, the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van was able to shift a part of the liability to the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle without the consent of the insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle when it saw that the entire liability was likely to fall upon it at the end of the proceeding. Thus, the settlement became a bargain for it if the claimant was made agreeable to the terms of settlement. What the settlement, in the instant case, resulted is that the insurer of the Honda Motorcycle was saddled with a part of the liability by making it to pay a part of the compensation which it was not likely to bear at the end of the proceeding and the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van got itself to bear a lesser amount of liability than it was likely at risk, to be saddled with at the end of the proceeding. Where no settlement agreement is signed by a party it cannot be termed as binding on the third party and in the event any bilateral settlement arrived at between two other parties in a proceeding where more than two parties are involved, without the consent of the third party, it is definitely open for the third party to assail such a judgment by way of appeal. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal preferred by the insurer of the Honda Motorcycle stands allowed. Since the claimant shall not be deprived of from receiving the just compensation as envisaged under the Act, it is directed that the insurer of the Bolero Pick-Up Van i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. shall also pay the balance amount of compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/- out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-, already arrived by the Claims Tribunal, over and above the amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- which it had already paid. The said amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from 30.06.2015 till the date of deposit before the concerned Claims Tribunal. The party i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. is to deposit this amount before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months weeks from today. The Registry is requested to forward a copy of this order to the concerned Claims Tribunal, so that the Claims Tribunal shall issue notice to the party i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit the amount and also to the claimant in order to facilitate the receipt of the balance amount of compensation with interest. The appellant-insurer shall be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit made in connection with the instant appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. The appellant-insurer shall be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit made in connection with the instant appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Record is to be sent accordingly.