Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 412 of 2007
PETITIONER:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
RESPONDENT:
Mam Chand & Anr. ...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5574 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed
the appeal, so far as related to the respondent No. 1-Mam
Chand and issued notice only to the driver cum owner i.e.
respondent No. 2.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the
’claimant’) filed a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’) claiming
compensation for alleged injuries caused to him by the
offending vehicle on 31.10.2001. The allegation was that the
respondent No. 2- Mohinder Pal i.e. the driver and owner of
the offending vehicle, a motor cycle No. HR01C-1531 was
driving the same in rash and negligent manner. The same
dashed against the scooter which the claimant was riding
causing multiple injuries. Adjudicating the claim petition the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhari (hereinafter
referred to as the ’Tribunal’) held that claimant respondent No.
1 was entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at
the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization and cost of the petition. The appellant was held to
be liable to pay the compensation amount. Tribunal rejected
the plea of the appellant that the offending vehicle was not the
subject matter of insurance on the date of accident. The
fixation of liability on the appellant was challenged by it by
filing the appeal before the High Court. By the impugned
order, the High Court held that even if a vehicle was not
insured at the relevant time that was a dispute between the
appellant and the respondent no. 2 and there was no need for
issuing notice to respondent No. 1.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that challenge was to the fixation of
liability so far as the appellant is concerned. In the absence of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the claimant, dispute cannot be effectively adjudicated if the
appeal is dismissed in the manner done. The result would be
that the appellant would be required to pay to the respondent
No. 1 even though it has no liability.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
submitted that the appellant in any event has to pay the
claimant and if really the vehicle was not the subject matter of
insurance, it would be open to the appellant to recover the
amount from the respondent no. 2 i.e. the driver cum owner of
the offending vehicle. But it cannot avoid its liability to pay so
far as the respondent no. 1 is concerned.
We find that the High Court has held that the only
question related to the dispute between the appellant and the
driver cum owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.2
and the respondent no. 1 was not concerned with the said
dispute.
In the appeal before the High Court the appellant was
questioning the fixation of liability so far as it is concerned. A
specific stand has been taken that since vehicle was not the
subject matter of insurance, it cannot be saddled with any
liability. This question is intimately linked with the
entitlement of the respondent no. 1 to receive the amount from
the appellant. In that sense it cannot be said that the
respondent No. 1 was not required to be heard and the appeal
was to be dismissed so far as he is concerned.
Therefore, we set aside the order of the High Court.
Since the respondent No. 1 is represented in this Court,
without further notice let him appear before the High Court.
The matter shall be taken in the High Court after a period of
four weeks from today for disposal in accordance with law.
The appeal has been admitted qua respondent No.2. Now
respondent No.1 is to be also heard. It is to be further noted
that the matter was directed to be placed before the Lok Adalat
after completion of service. It shall be open to the parties to
bring to the notice of the Court as to whether they want the
matter to be settled by the Lok Adalat or not. About that
aspect we expressed no opinion. Appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent but without any orders as to costs.