PATEL RAMANBHAI HIRABHAI Vs. PUNJAB TRAVELS & OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sushama Shah learned advocate for Mr. Sunil Shah learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rituraj Meena learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) Both these appeals are arising from common consolidated judgement and award dated 12.7.1999 in different Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.II) at Gandhinagar. First Appeal No. 1798/2003 is arising out of judgement and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 549 of 1987 whereas First Appeal No. 651/2006 is arising from judgment and award in MACP NO. 954 of 1988. In addition to the quantum of compensation, when Insurance Company has raised the issue of negligence, it would be appropriate to first consider the question of negligence since both the appeals are by original claimants claiming compensation by challenging the impugned award on the ground of negligence. It is contended by the respondent that when two vehicles were involved in the incident and therefore, when claimants have not joined the driver, owner and insurance company of another vehicle and they all claim additional amount of compensation from driver, owner and insurer of one vehicle only and to that extent considering the contributory negligence of two tort feasors, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, there is no substance in such submission for a simple reason that it is a settled legal position that the victim of the road accident can claim compensation from either of the tort feasors and all the tort feasors are otherwise also jointly and severally liable to compensate the full amount of compensation to the victims of road accident, irrespective of their role in the incident and thereby the percentage of their negligence for the incident. If we consider the nature of incident, one luxury bus was hit by one tanker in Ahmedabad city, whereby the tanker and luxury bus went off the road and dashed with tree and people nearby leading to the injured claimants to prefer the claim petition for claiming compensation. Whereas one of the petition was filed by the owner of the tanker which was damaged in this incident. Therefore, First Appeal No. 1798/ 2003 is for damages of the vehicle whereas First Appeal No. 651/2006 is a claim for compensation filed by minor injured claimant.

(3.) In view of the above position when the present respondents have never applied before or during the proceedings of the petition before the Tribunal for joining the driver, owner and insurer of another vehicle, now at this stage there is no substance in their submission that non-joining of driver, owner and insurer of the tanker in question would result into dismissal of claim petition so also these appeals. It is clear that though this plea is taken at a belated stage.