S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 778/2001 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Harikishore Sharma & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1154/2001 (Hari kishore Sharma Versus Ram Dayal & Others) Date of Order :: 11th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Tripurari Sharma, counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. Sandeep Mathur counsel for the Hari Kishore Sharma BY THE COURT: The aforesaid two appeals arise out of and pertain to judgment and award dated 11th April, 2001 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.75,000/- in favour of appellant Hari Kishore Sharma and against the respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. Aggrieved with the meagre amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the appellant Hari Kishore Sharma has preferred an appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Conversely, aggrieved with the same judgment, the National Insurance Company has filed this appeal praying to set-aside the award dated 11th April, 2001 as the Company was not liable to pay any compensation. -2- Civil Misc. Appeal No. 778/2001: 4. The crucial question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured claimant Hari Kishore Sharma in the event when the truck bearing registration no. RJ 25 G – 0131 was requisitioned by the State Government for election duty, which is alleged to have been involved in the accident? 5. For the disposal of the instant appeal, the back ground facts, in a nut shell, are stated thus: “That the State Government requisitioned one truck RJ – 25 G 0131 for panchayat elections. The Officer-Incharge of the office of District Election Officer (Transport), Sawai Madhopur allotted this truck to Returning Officer of Polling party No. 68-69 for carrying all the employees of this polling party deputed to conduct the election of Panchyat Samiti, Sapotara of Panchayat General Elections, 1995. The claimant appellant -3- Hari Kishore Sharma, Constable was a member of polling party no. 68-69 for Panchayat election duty at Sapotara. When the polling party was returning in truck RJ 25 G 0131 on 4th February, 1995 to Gangapur, the truck, on account of being rashly and negligently driven by its driver, met with an accident at Shyampura turn. Since the truck was at a high speed on turn, the same turned turtle resulting into injuries to all the 25 members of the polling party including the claimant appellant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company as also the learned counsel for the claimant respondent and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company canvassed that since the said truck RJ 25 G 0131 was requisitioned by the State Government for holding the Panchayat general elections, 1995 and the said truck was within the control and possession of the State Government, -4- any member of the polling party, if, sustained grievous or simple injuries in an accident, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. On the contrary, the State Government is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured or the representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. In the instant case, all the 25 members of the polling party sustained injuries in the said accident including Hari Kishore Sharma. As such, the liability can be fastened on the State Government only to pay the amount of compensation to the injured. 8. E Contra, the learned counsel for the claimant respondent submitted that this Hon'ble Court had already ordered in stay application that the amount of compensation, if paid by the Insurance Company, could be realized by the Insurance Company from the State Government. 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the truck RJ 25 G 0131 involved in the said accident -5- was requisitioned by the State Government and the same was allotted by the Officer of the District Election Officer (Transport), Sawai Madhopur to the Returning Officer of Polling Party No. 68- 69 to conduct the election of the Panchayat Samiti, Sapotara vide letter No. Yatayat / PA / Chunav / 95 dated 1st February, 1995. This letter clearly reveals that the said vehicle was within the control and possession of the State Government at the time when it met with an accident. 10. In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation Versus B. Krishnaji Rao and another reported in I (1996) ACC 277, Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed thus: “7. The Tribunal erred in deducting Rs. 1,000/- paid as ex gratia by the RTC. I have held in C.M.A. No. 782 of 1990 dated 3.7.1993 and C.M.A. No. 1504 of 1998 just now pronounced that tortfeasor cannot claim benefit of deduction of the amount paid voluntarily by either itself or by somebody. So, the respondents are entitled to Rs. 93,000/- in addition to Rs. 1,000/- already received as ex gratia, together with -6- interest at 12 per cent per annum as already granted by the Tribunal.” 11. It is germane to record that the scheme of the M.V. Act in relation to the payment of compensation to the claimant is a beneficial legislation. The intention of the legislature is made more clear by change of language from what was in Fatal Accidents, 1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of the 1939 Act. This is also visible through the provisions of Section 168 (1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of 1939 Act, which fixes the liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault. It provides where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident in spite of no fault of the owner of the vehicle, an amount of compensation, fixed therein, is payable to claimant by such owner of the vehicle. Section 92-B ensures that the claim for compensation under Section 92-A is in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect whereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the -7- time being in force. This clearly indicates the intention of the legislature, which is conferring larger benefit to the claimant. Interpretation of such beneficial legislation is also well settled. I would like to impress upon that even if there is a pronouncement otherwise in this regard, the judgment which sub- serves the object of the legislation, viz. benefit to the subject, should be ascertained. I have no hesitation to observe that the State Government is duty bound to pay the compensation to the injured, but no such amount of compensation has been paid by the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur to him. 12. It is very pertinent to record that when a valid requisition is there for a vehicle and the user of the vehicle has been changed from the real owner to the State Govt., in the event of an accident that takes place by the requisitional vehicle, the claim should be against the Govt. alone. The liability of the vehicle that had been requisitioned by the Govt. stands on a different footing than the -8- vehicle that has been hired to a third party for a limited purpose, for marriage function or carrying for goods etc. Thus, the State Govt. alone is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any, during the period of requisition as held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus S. Ramulamma reported in 1989 ACJ 596 at page 598. 13. In the instant case, it is found that the claimant respondent made the State Government party in claim petition no. 1716/1999 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, but none appeared for the State. The appellant Insurance Company has also arrayed the State Government as a respondent no.5 in appeal no. 778/2001, but none has appeared before me also in the instant appeal. It is found from the perusal of the impugned award that an amount of Rs.75,000/- has been decreed in favour of the claimant respondent no.1 and against the appellant Insurance Company, respondent no.3 Jagdish Prasad and -9- respondent no. 4 Girraj severally and jointly. The learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to why the state Government was not liable to pay the compensation to the insured in the instant case when the truck involved in the accident was requisitioned by the State Government for election duty and the same was under the control and possession of the State Government at the time of accident. The impugned award, to the extent of fastening liability on Insurance Company, cannot be said to be just and proper. It suffers from factual as also legal infirmity. Since no liability is found to have been fixed on the State Government to pay the compensation and no reason has been assigned for not fixing the liability, the impugned award can be said to be arbitrary and without application of an intellect. I am of the firm view that when the vehicle was requisitioned by the State Government and it was within the control and possession of the State Government at the time of accident, in that case, the State -10- Government alone can be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured Hari Kishore Sharma, who was deputed as a Constable to discharge the duties in Panchayat General Elections, 1995 being a member of the polling party no. 68-69 at Sapotara. This Court in Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1662/2001 has already observed that the amount paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant respondent no.1 shall be subject to the result of this appeal. In the event of, this appeal is allowed, the appellant Insurance Company will be at full liberty to realize this amount from the Government of Rajasthan. 14. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Versus Kailash Nath Kothari and others reported in 1998 (1) TAC 42 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the bus was under the control and possession of hirer - the State Road Transport Corporation, the Corporation alone was liable to pay the compensation and the Corporation could not escape its liability to pay the same. In -11- the appeal at hand, the State Government also cannot escape from its liability. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 1154/2001 15. The appellant Hari Kishore Sharma has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 16. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned award on record, it is noticed that appellant Hari Kishore Sharma was employed as a Constable in CID CB and deputed in the election duty with polling party no. 68-69 of District Sawai Madhopur in Panchayat General Elections, 1995. 17. Learned counsel canvassed that claimant injured remained admitted in Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur for 15 days and at Government Hospital, Karauli for 3-4 days. He also contended that the injured developed urinary problem, as a result of which catheter was inserted for smooth passing of urine. Albeit, the learned counsel has prayed to enhance the amount of compensation, but has not furnished any document so as to prove the -12- fact of admission in Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur and Government Hospital, Karauli. There is not even a shred of evidence, which could prove that the injured claimant ever remained admitted in the hospital and he incurred expenses on treatment. The learned Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the matter and properly appreciated the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the injured claimant which seems to be just and proper. The impugned award suffers from no infirmity, nor it warrants any intervention. 18. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1154/2001 being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. 19. So far as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 778/2001 is concerned, it is allowed in part. The impugned award is maintained but the liability to pay the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 75,000/- is fastened on the State Government and it is ordered that the appellant National Insurance Company can realize the amount of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- from the -13- State Government. The State Government is directed to pay this amount within a period of one month positively, failing which the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to realize the amount by way of an execution. 20. The impugned award stands modified as indicated here-in-above. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-