GENERAL MANAGER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the 1st respondent, the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C., Trivandrum, in O. P.(MV) 339/1985 before the M.A.C.T., Alappuzha. The United India Insurance Co. filed the O. P. claiming an amount of Rs. 15603.71 from the appellant towards compensation. The tribunal allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the above order, the K.S.R.T.C. has come up in appeal.

(2.) On 17.10.1982 there occurred a motor traffic accident at the national highway at Thuravoor, in Cherthala taluk. A K.S.R.T.C. Fast Passenger bus bearing No. N-656 collided with a Bajaj Matador Tempo Van bearing No. KLY 5266 causing extensive damage to the van. It was alleged that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus by its driver. It was alleged that the police registered a case, preferred a charge sheet against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus and later he was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala. The van was insured with the United India Insurance Co. and the policy was a comprehensive one. The owner of the tempo van preferred a claim before the insurer and the damage caused to the tempo van was assessed and an amount of Rs. 15103.71 was paid to the insured (the owner of the van) by the insurance company. The insurance company obtained a letter of subrogation from the owner of the van, the 3rd respondent authorising the insurer to realise the amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and, on the basis of the same, the insurance company preferred a claim before the tribunal against the owner of the offending vehicle, the K.S.R.T.C. The above claim was allowed by the tribunal and the above award is under challenge.

(3.) The respondents, even though notice was served on them, did not appear. The learned counsel for the appellant was heard. It was argued that a claim for damages at the instance of the insurer was not maintainable before a tribunal as the tribunal had no jurisdiction conferred under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act to decide a claim made by an insurer and the remedy open to the insurer was only to file a civil suit against the owner of the offending vehicle. It was further argued that the claims tribunal had jurisdiction to grant compensation to the claims as envisaged under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act and a claim by an insurer on the basis of a letter of subrogation issued by the insured is not contemplated under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act and such a claim cannot be decided by a claims tribunal. In the present case the insurer had already paid the amount due to the insured as a result of the damage sustained to the insured's vehicle in the accident in terms of the policy. The owner of the vehicle viz. the insured had issued a letter of subrogation authorising the insurer to recover the amount from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle and on the basis of that letter of subrogation, the insurer of the van filed the O. P. before the claims tribunal against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as the owner of the insured van.