IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 210 of 2007 Date of Decision : November 11, 2009 Oriental Insurance Company Appellant Versus Sh. Manohar Lal and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. J. L. Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the insurer’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the award dated 21.3.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 15 of 2005, titled as Manohar Lal versus Shamsher Singh and others. The challenge is only on the ground that an application filed by a joint-tortfeasor under Section 166 of the Act was not 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 maintainable and no compensation could have been awarded to him by the Tribunal. Admittedly the insurer has neither sought, nor was granted permission under Section 170 of the Act by the Tribunal. Claimant Sh. Manohar Lal was driving scooter No. HP-19-A- 0797 with two persons as pillion riders. On 9.12.2001 Tractor No. HP-19-9489 being driven by Sh. Sukhdev Singh in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter as a result of which the claimant and the pillion riders sustained injuries and one of them died. Each claimant, including Sh. Manohar Lal filed separate petitions under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation. The petition was opposed by Sh. Shamsher Singh the owner and Sh. Sukhdev Singh the driver of the tractor inter alia on the ground that in fact the vehicle was not involved in the accident at all and in connivance with the police officials a false complaint had been lodged. The tractor having been insured with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer opposed the petition inter alia on the ground that material terms and conditions of the policy stood breached inasmuch as the driver was not possessed with a valid and effective driving licence and that for want of impleadment of necessary parties i.e. the owner and the driver of the scooter who had contributed to the occurrence of the accident, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 3 Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the tractor (No. HP-19-9489) by Sukhdev Singh (respondent 2) on December 9, 2001. OPP 2. If the above issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom. OPP 3. Whether the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. OPR.3 4. Whether the tractor was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OPR.3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the scooter (No. HP-19-A- 0797). OPR.3 6. Whether the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the scooterist. OPR.3 7. Relief.” Based on the evidence led by the parties the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Sh. Sukhdev, the driver of the tractor. The claimant was held entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs. 48,054/- and the insurer was directed to pay the same as the driver of the insured was possessed with a valid and effective driving licence and no terms and conditions of the policy stood breached. 4 Mr. J. L. Kashyap, learned counsel for the insurer has pressed the appeal on the ground that since in Claim Petition No. 19 of 2003, titled as Sh. Ranjeet Singh & others versus Sh. Shamsher Singh & others, in terms of Award dated 5.1.2005 passed by the very same Tribunal, the present claimant has been held to be a joint tortfeasor therefore the claim petition was not maintainable. It is true that separate claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal and in claim petition No. 19 of 2003 the Tribunal held the present claimant to be a joint tortfeasor, but however this Court in FAO No. 146 of 2005, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Sh. Ranjeet Singh & others, has reversed the findings of the Tribunal and held the driver of the tractor Sh. Sukhdev Singh alone to be negligent in driving the vehicle, which in effect was the cause of the accident. Therefore the appeal does not survive. In any event I have gone through the record and from the statements of claimant’s witnesses and more specifically Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) as also the F.I.R. Ext.PW4/A it stands proved and established that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. Importantly the insurer has accepted the award dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, H.P. in yet another claim petition No. 23 of 2002, titled as Smt. Shukla Devi and others versus Sh. Shamsher Singh and others, 5 which also arises out of the very same accident. No appeal was filed against the findings returned by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter the present appeal without any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 11, 2009 (PK)