DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND COLLECTOR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) This appeal presents a question of determination of liability in connection with the accident that took place on 23/1/2010 between a bus [Offending vehicle] bearing registration number MP-07-MG-9897 and a motorcycle bearing number MP-07-TC-0514, killing the rider of the latter. The bus, although under the ownership of Kidzee Corner School, Gwalior, had been, undisputedly, requisitioned under the orders of the appellant for the purposes of Gram Panchayat Elections. It had, while being under the orders and command of the relevant election authorities, dashed into the motor-cycle of the deceased. The Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior [Tribunal] allowed the claim [Claim No. 25/2010] that had been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely Rajesh Mandil and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,13,500.00 along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition. The award also provided for a distribution of the amount so awarded as per the discussion in issue No. 6. Aggrieved by such determination, two Miscellaneous Appeals came to be filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh - one by the Insurance Company (respondent no.1 herein) being MA No.703 of 2012 and one by the legal representatives of the deceased - respondent nos. 2 to 5, before this Court who instead took objection to the conservative estimation of the deceased's income and as such, prayed for the enhancement of the compensation so awarded. In terms of the impugned judgment dtd. 8/1/2024, both the miscellaneous appeals were allowed. The Insurance Company's appeal was allowed insofar as liability originally fastened upon them was instead shifted to the appellant herein. The Appeal by Respondent Nos. 2-5 was allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.27,01,556.00.

(3.) The appellant by way of this appeal takes exception to the shifting of liability upon him. It is urged that the High Court's determination was erroneous since at the relevant point in time the offending vehicle was under the coverage of an insurance policy, and so liability to be fastened otherwise would be wrong. Further, it is submitted that when the bus was being used for a public purpose and in course thereof, if the liability is fastened upon public authorities it would send a wrong message since the authorities do not have either ownership of the vehicle or any insurable interest therein.