[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, 0001in equal shares since there was contributory negligence of vehicle and bus driver - Upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Liability of appellantassurance 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.75,0001out 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

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.

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 TAT A 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:

"As held above, since it is a case of contributory B

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 ccompensation jointly and severally. . 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 TAT A 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.

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

N.J.

Appeal dismissed.