Mst. Asharfi v. Chandrapal Singh Ors

: Mr. Sanjay Mehla For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 07/05/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (hereinafter to be referred to as "MACT Court") in Claim Petition No.194/2007 tilted as "Mst. Asharfi Vs. Chandrapal Singh & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased Phool Singh, along with his father, was traveling in a pickup Jeep and, while returning from Alwar, the driver of the [2025:RJ-JP:19290] (2 of 5) [CMA-1904/2011] vehicle lost control, and consequently, the Jeep overturned, and in the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The claim petition has been filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased wherein they sought compensation.

3. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimants No.1 and 2 by filing a reply wherein they denied the factum of the accident and further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the answering respondents.

4. The non-claimant No.3-Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein and further stated that the involvement of the vehicle is not proved and that there is a violation in terms of the policy. Thus company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned MACT Court framed the following issues: ^^1- vk;k fnukad 12-04-07 dks okgu ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k&2 ds }kjk okgu dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ] ftlds dkj.k Qwyflag dh e`R;q gks xbZ \ 2- vk;k foi{kh la[;k&2 okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k&,d ds fu;kstu dky esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk o fu;kstu dky esa ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ \ 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls 23]22]000@&:i;s dh jkf'k {kfriwfrZ Lo:i izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gS rks fdl&fdl foi{kh ls rFkk fdruh&fdruh \ 4- vk;k foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k fooj.k esa vafdr rF;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS \ 5- vuqrks"k \ ** [2025:RJ-JP:19290] (3 of 5) [CMA-1904/2011]

6. The learned MACT Court, while allowing the claim petition, awarded a claim of Rs.1,25,000/-. However, while deciding issue No.3, it was held that the vehicle in question, bearing Registration No.RJ-02/G-8596, was a goods vehicle wherein carrying passengers was not permissible. Therefore, the Insurance Company was exonerated, and liability was fastened upon the appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Court below has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. He further submits that since the vehicle was insured, it was the responsibility of the Insurance Company to indemnify the appellant and to pay compensation to the claimants.

8. In the present matter, despite service upon the respondents, no one has appeared.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

10. Admittedly, this is a case where the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, and as per the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, decided on

06.01.2004, it has been held as under:

20. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature [2025:RJ-JP:19290] (4 of 5) [CMA-1904/2011] to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.

21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub- served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding. [2025:RJ-JP:19290] (5 of 5) [CMA-1904/2011] Further, same view is reiterated in the case of NICO Vs. Bommithi reported in 2005 (12) SCC 243, therefore, the direction passed by the learned MACT Court exonerating the Insurance Company and fastening the liability upon the driver and the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to be improper in the eyes of the law.

11. The order impugned is based upon due appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and the relevant law on the subject. There is no merit in the appeal, the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

12. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.

13. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/64 Whether reportable: Yes/No