Holding

Liability of the insurer or owner does not arise when they are not impleaded as parties in the claim petition; therefore the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remitted.

Summary

The case arose from a motor accident in which the driver of a Tata 407 vehicle, Rajesh, died. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000 compensation, holding that both the vehicle and a bus driver were contributory negligent and that the liability of the insurer, New India Assurance Co., would be half the award. The appellant argued that the owner and insurer of the vehicle had not been impleaded in the claim petition, and therefore their liability could not arise. The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the Tribunal's award, but the Supreme Court held that without being impleaded, the insurer/owner cannot be held liable for the compensation. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the lower court for fresh consideration. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

When a party (owner or insurer) is not impleaded in a motor accident claim petition, can they be held liable for compensation awarded for death of the driver?

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actmotor accidentdeath of drivercompensationcontributory negligenceliability of insurerimpleading partiesMotor Accident Claims TribunalSupreme Court of India

Judgment

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1

' NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. A
v.
SATBIR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1979 of 2009)
MARCH 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
j. GANGULY, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ~ Motor accident - Death of
driver of the vehicle - Compensation - Claim of - Tribunal c
awarding Rs. 1, 50, 0001- in equal shares since there was
contributory negligence of vehicle and bus driver - Upheld
by High Court - On appeal, held: Liability of appellant-
assurance company would be half of the amount awarded in
respect of death of driver of the vehicle - However, owner and D
insurer of vehicle not impleaded as party in the claim petition
- As such their liability for any amount in respect of death of
the driver does not arise :... Thus, order of High Court set aside
- Matter remitted back for consideration afresh.
The question which arose for consideration in this E
appeal was that when the owner and the insurer of the
vehicle were not impleaded as party .in claim petition,
.;
whether they could be made liable for any 11.mount in
respect of the accident. ."
F
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: It is pointed out that if at all the amount was
to be paid in respect of the death of 'R' who was the
deceased and the driver of the vehicle, the liability of the
... G
appellant-assurance company would be half of the
amount awarded i.e. Rs.75,0001- out of Rs.1,50,0001-. The
owner and the insurer of the vehicle were not impleaded
as party in the claim petition. That being so, the question
1 H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R

A of their being liable for any amount in respect of the
accident in respect of driver of the vehicle does not arise.
It appears that the High Court has not taken note of these
relevant aspects. In the special circumstance the
impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the
B matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. [Para 5)
[3-C-E]

CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1979 of 2009.
C From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 5130 _
of 2003. '
Salil Paul and Indra Sawhney for the Appellant.
D Joy Basu, Ruchi Sharda and B.K. Satija for the
Respondent. )I

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
2. Challenge in these appeals is the order passed by the
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The 1st FAO 5130/
2003 was filed by the present appellant. Both the appeals were
F filed by the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as an
Insurance Company).

3. Challenge was to the order passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (in short MACT). The basic
challenge was that the MACT while dealing with the claim
G petition filed, categorically hold that the accident took place due
to the contributory negligence of TATA 407 vehicle and the bus
driver of Haryana Roadways.

4. It is case of the appellant that there was some mistakes
H in the order of the MACT as both the present appellant and the
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SATBIR AND 3
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1- National Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short the National Insurance were A
treated to be respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the claim petition
No.80. ·It is also pointed out that having held that there was
contributory negligence the ultimate direction of the MACT was
as follows:
B
"As held above, since it is a case of contributory
negligence, the petitioner are entitled to recover a sum of
~
Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in equal shares due to the
-. death of Rajesh in the ill-fated accident. All the
Respondents are liable to pay this amount of
compensation jointly and severally.
c-
.
· 5. It is pointed out that if at all the amount was to be paid
in respect of the death of Rajesh who was the deceased and
=- the driver of the TATA 407 vehicle, the liability of the appellant
- Assurance Company would be half of the amount awarded D
.. i.e. Rs. 75,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is pointed out that the
owner and the insurer of the vehicle were not impleaded as party
in the claim petition. That being so, the question of their being
liable for any amount in respect of the accident in respect of
driver of the vehicle TATA 407 bearing registration No.HR-39- E
8008 does not arise. It appears that the High Court has not
taken note of these relevant aspects. In the special
circumstance we set aside the impugned order of the High
Court and remit the matter back for fresh consideration.
"
6. The appeals disposed of with no order as to costs. F

7. It is to be noted that except National Insurance Company
no other respondent has appeared in the appeal.

N.J. Appeal dismissed. G
-.