Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal, J.) The appellant feeling aggrieved by the award dated 6.10.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge Court No. 5, Faizabad, in Claim Petition No. 13/2006, has preferred this First Appeal From Order, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( the Act).
The brief facts are that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act for award of Rs. 11,46,000/- as compensation. It was alleged by the appellant that the accident took place on 28.6.2004 at 8.30 P.M. when the son of the appellant, namely, Indra Jeet was going on Motorcycle No. U.P. 42G/3407 along with Rajesh Kumar and Raj Kumar, towards Mubarakpur. When he reached near Lakhauri village, he stopped the Motorcycle to attend the call of nature. As soon as the appellant's son got down from the motorcycle, a truck bearing Registration No. HR 38 E 1217 came at a very high speed and dashed against the stationary motorcycle. The impact of the collusion was so grave that the appellant's son Indra Jeet Verma and Rajesh Kumar died on the spot while Raj Kumar received serious injury. The appellant gave information of the accident to the concerned police station on 30.6.2004.
The respondent no.1 after service of notice appeared before the Tribunal but did not file any written statement. The respondent no.2 Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the fact that the motorcycle was insured with the respondent-company. It was also contended that in case the motorcycle was being driven by a person having no licence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant was highly excessive.
The learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 5 issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the accident took place on account of joint negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles and the driver of motorcycle was not having a driving licence. With regard to the quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- but reduced the amount of compensation to half on the ground that the deceased was also jointly responsible for the accident.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claim petition was presented under Section 163-A of the Act which is a special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Under this provision the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that since the appellant was not required to prove the negligence of any of the drivers of the vehicles, the learned Tribunal was not required to frame issue on this point and could not have reduced the amount of compensation holding that the driver of the motorcycle was equally responsible for the accident.
The learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Co. has submitted that the learned Tribunal has framed specific issue with regard to the negligence of the drivers of the vehicles and on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of joint negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Thus, the leaned Tribunal was justified in reducing the amount of compensation to half on the ground that the driver of the motorcycle was also equally responsible for the accident and further had no driving licence at the time of accident. However, he does not dispute that the petition for compensation was moved under Section 163-A of the Act. It is also not disputed that under the provision of 163-A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove the wrongful act and negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicles.
The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh report in 2005 (1) TAC 981 Sushila Bhadoriya and others Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another; in which the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh has held that the owner, driver and insurer of only one of the vehicle can be sued and it is not necessary to sue owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant in the cases of the accident involving 2 vehicles may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Full Bench that there cannot be apportionment of the liability of joint tort-feasors. Even on general principles of law there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tort-feasors.
From the perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Tribunal has totally ignored the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act and the law according to which the liability of payment of compensation cannot be divided while granting compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.
In view of the above, the award impugned in the First Appeal From Order deserves to be modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation along with the interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition.
In the result the First Appeal From Order is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation from the respondent no.2 along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Order Date :- 16.9.2014 Muk