DEEPAK DEWAN Vs. SHANTI DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, on 14.4.1986 whereby the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as petitioners under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') was disposed of and the petitioner herein, who was respondent No. 6 in the claim petition, was ordered to pay Rs. 15,000.00 by way of interim relief to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as also to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the parents of the deceased. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the widow and two minor sons of the deceased, namely, Satish Chand Diwan.

(2.) The plea of the petitioner, who at the relevant time when the accident took place was driving the car involved in the accident, was that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the scooter driver, Parkash Chand Batra, for the reason that the deceased was sitting on the pillion seat of the said scooter and there is a prima facie evidence to show that it was the entire fault of said scooter driver which resulted in the fatal accident in as much as the site plan revealed that he was coming on the wrong side of the road which has a clear divider whereas the petitioner was on his correct side.

(3.) While filing reply to the claim petition this petitioner had moved an application under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, seeking an order of the court to implead the said scooter driver who incidentally happened to be the owner also. The Tribunal, however, while passing the impugned order, observed that the fact, whether there was any joint tortfeasor or not, who could be held responsible for the accident, so far as the order under section 92-A is concerned, was not relevant factor or circumstance for the reason that the provisions of this section are very clear that the Tribunal was concerned at this stage only with the factum of accident and the resultant death. Further, while noticing the provisions of section 92-A where the liability in the case of more than one tortfeasor was joint and several, the Tribunal held that since the petitioners were seeking an order of interim compensation only against the present petitioner, who was the car driver, the fact that they had not impleaded the owner of the scooter also as a co-respondent, was not relevant. Accordingly an order under section 92-A granting interim relief of Rs. 15,000.00, as contemplated by law, was passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the present appeal.