UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DHARMENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal referred in Chapter 12 of the Act, they are the Civil Courts as defined under Ss. 168 and 169 Sub Sec. (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. In the present petition, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the procedure to be followed by it would be governed by the provisions contained under the Code of Civil Procedure. An interesting question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is pertaining to the effect of non-impleadment of the Insurance Company of the Tractor, which was said to have been involved in the accident, which has occurred on 3/3/2011. Before dealing with the facts of the matter, it is also necessary to refer to the provisions contained under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the Act itself has considered as to what consequences would follow. If there is a failure to implead the Insurance Company as party to the proceedings the provisions of Sec. 170 is quoted hereunder:-

(2.) Reverting back to the procedure prescribed under Sec. 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in their objection before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, without taking any specific plea that the proceedings are bad because the insurer of the tractor was not made as a party to the proceedings in the light of the provisions contained under Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the fact remains that the Insurance Company of the tractor involved in the accident was not made as a party in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the proceedings after having been held under Sec. 169, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are the Civil Courts and the proceedings before it would be governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Even if, despite of there being no pleading raised by the appellant to the said effect, if the issue pertaining to the effect of non-impleadment of the insurer of the tractor, if at all was having any impact on determination of the compensation the appellant should have got an issue framed pertaining to Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act or an issue pertaining to the fixation of a liability based on the principles of contradictory negligence. In fact, mere pleading of a case before the court below or before any tribunal is based on pleading, where it entails for conducting the case after pleading and for sufficient evidence it could not be argued at an appellate stage when the appellate himself has not invoked the provisions contained under Order 14 Rules 3 and 4 to get an appropriate issue framed on the aforesaid fact of the effect of non impleadment of the insurer of the tractor.

(3.) Hence, at this stage, the said issue cannot be reframed at an appellate stage and that too without a pleading for determining the quantum of compensation. Thus this plea taken by the appellant is turned down in the absence of the pleading. In the case at hand, admittedly, the claimant/ respondent no.1, who was injured in the accident which has occurred on 3/3/2011. It was on account of collusion of Bus No.UA 07-H/8816 belonging to the appellant, with the tractor of the Nagar Palika bearing Registration No.UA 12-3995. As per the pleading raised in the claim petition the claimant/respondent no.1, had submitted that on the ill-fated day i.e. 3/3/2011, when the accident occurred he was standing in front of the tractor the bus which was driven by respondent no.2 negligently and rashly dashed against him, causing grievous injuries to him.