The revision petitioner is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.462 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal and in the petition, he sought for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents 1 & 2 with costs and interest from the date of petition. During pendency of the petition, the Insurance Company/1st respondent herein had filed an application in I.A.No.1147 of 2006, seeking impleadment of the 3rd respondent herein as party to the claim petition and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/claimant is before this Court.
2. It is the case of the revision petitioner / claimant that when his Ashok Leyland Heavy Goods Lorry, bearing Reg.No.TAL 3609, proceeding from Chennai to Chelgalpattu on 25.04.2001 was parked at the roadside at about 10:00pm, another lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-49 N 8529 (in short offending vehicle), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind his lorry, as a result of which, the lorry caught fire and completely burnt down. Pursuant to the said accident, Police registered a case in Crime No.184 of 2001 and the same has been pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu for trial. It is the further case of the petitioner that his lorry was in good condition prior to the accident and was not involved in any accident. Due to the loss of the lorry, his livelihood has become standstill and he was put to great loss and mental agony.
3. The petitioner further states that since the accident had occurred solely on the carelessness of the driver, the Insurance Company, namely, 1st respondent herein, with which the offending vehicle was insured, is liable to pay compensation for the damage caused to the property, viz., lorry. However, the application filed by the 1st respondent herein for impleading the insurance company of the lorry of the petitioner, was erroneously allowed by the Trial Court, on the ground that complete finding would be given only on the impleadment of the insurance company of the petitioner's lorry. The petitioner also states that it is a settled law that when two vehicles are involved, it is the discretion of the person, claiming compensation to choose as to whom to be added as a party for such purpose. Without considering the said principle, the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application, thereby permitting the 1st respondent herein to add the insurer of the lorry of the petitioner as a party to the claim petition, which is un-sustainable in law and need to be interfered with.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material documents available on record.
5. The claim petition, which is of the year 2006, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the insurer / 1st respondent herein of the offending vehicle, which was strongly refuted by the 1st respondent before the Trial Court stating that the driver of the lorry of the petitioner suddenly applied brake and stopped the vehicle on the road on the gesture of a passer-by and the said negligent manner of the driver ended in fatality. It is further submitted by the 1st respondent herein that the petitioner did not claim any own damage from his insurer and the petitioner, being third party to the 1st respondent cannot claim any compensation from them.
6. The submission was repudiated by the petitioner stating that FIR was registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle, pursuant to his death, no charge sheet could be laid so far and since it was prima facie established that the accident had happened only on the fault of the offending vehicle, own damage claim is not at all maintainable before the Insurer of the petitioner's lorry.
7. The claim petition was filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles which pre-supposes a vehicular accident due to fault/negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured with the 2nd respondent herein. For better understanding,
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is extracted hereunder:
166. Application for compensation. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of
section 165 may be made
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
1[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under
section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] 2[***] 3[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of
section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.]
8. In the application for impleadment filed before the Trial Court, the stand taken by the 1st respondent herein was that the petitioner, instead of approaching his insurer, namely, 3rd respondent herein by way of own damage claim, sought compensation from the insurance company of the offending vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that on account of the heavy dash, the lorry of the petitioner caught fire and completely deteriorated, at that juncture, it is highly impossible to claim own damage insurance. It was admitted that FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and due to his death, the Trial in the criminal case did not proceed further and was stopped at that and as such, it would be highly improbable to make such a claim before the insurer of the petitioner vehicle.
9. The next contention raised by the 1st respondent herein in the application was that since the petitioner and his lorry were third parties to the offending vehicle insured with the 1st respondent herein and therefore, no liability can be fastened against the 1st respondent. This stand cannot be accepted. Once a tort-feasor has been duly identified (in this case, FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the same was closed due to his death), the insurance company, with which the vehicle is insured, is liable to pay compensation, as a third party insurance policy is a policy under which the insurance company agrees to indemnify the insured person, if he is sued or held legally liable for injuries or damage done to a third party. In a third party insurance or liability insurance, the assured himself is covered against legal liability which he may incur to a third party and the establishment of such liability by the third party, not merely suffered by the third party, is an essential perquisite to a claim in the policy.
10. In view of what is stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that impleadment of the third respondent in this case is unwarranted and it will prolong the issue instead of giving quietus. Therefore, the order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.1147 of 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.462 of 2006 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal, is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result,
a) this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.1147 of 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.462 of 2006 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal, is hereby set aside;
b) considering the fact that the claim petition is of the year 2006, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.462 of 2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either parties and the parties shall also cooperate for early disposal of the suit within the stipulated period prescribed above.
M.V.MURALIDARAN.J, vs
c) It is made clear that whatever is observed above is only for the purpose of deciding this petition alone and the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the case in M.C.O.P.No.462 of 2006 based on the materials placed before it, being uninfluenced by anything stated hereinabove.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.11.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 17.07.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order vs To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.(PD) No.2689 of 2007