UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. YUVRAJ PANDURANG KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award dated 17th December, 1984 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in M.A.C.P. No.219 of 1983, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Tribunal below was unjustified in holding that the original non-claimant No.1, namely, Vishwanath Ramchandra Chauhan, was driving the vehicle, which was owned by Bhaskar Rao Annaji Pawar, and as he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the Insurance Company would be liable to compensate the original claimant/present respondent No.1.

(2.) After taking me through the evidence available on the record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal below, though found that there was some collusion between the claimant, owner of the truck and respondent No.4, but, without recording a further finding that what would be the effect of such collusion, the learned Tribunal could not award the amount and consequently, could not hold the appellant liable. It is also submitted that in the police papers, the present respondent No.4 - Hindurao Pandurang Kadam was shown as the driver and he was convicted by the learned Criminal Court and if the said judgement has attained finality, then, the finding contrary to the guilt of the present respondent No.4 could not have been recorded.

(3.) The learned Tribunal below, in paragraph 9 of its judgement, has clearly observed that respondent No.4 was the brother of the claimant and "opponent No.2 (respondent No.3), i.e. owner, would be interested in seeing that the whole liability should be shifted upon opponent No.3, who is the present appellant Insurance Company, and therefore, some collusion seems to have been practised". If that was the finding, then, the learned Tribunal below should have further seen that what would be the effect of such collusion. Once the Court records a finding about the collusion, then, procedure of the Court cannot be allowed to be corrupted. The learned Tribunal below should have recorded a specific finding that whether there was collusion or not and if there was collusion, what would be the effect of the same.