DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award passed in MACTOP.No,889 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (PDJ), Pondicherrty, is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in MACTOP.No,889 of 2005 (The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 312, First Floor, J.N.Street, Pondicherry). The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the claimants in MACTOP.Nos.885, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891 & 892 of 2005 are unauthorized travellers in the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-31-Z- 1647 with the trailer bearing registration No.TCF-6574, which involved in the accident on 19.06.2005 at about 10.00 am and the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident.

(3.) IN support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on AIR 2008 SC 460 (United INdia INsuracne Co. Ltd., Vs. Serjerao and others). The facts of the said case are that the claimants therein were travellers in a trailer attached to a tractor as labourers, which met with an accident, the claimants suffered injuries. The claimants filed petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur on the principle of no fault liability has awarded compensation. The INsurance Company took a stand that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the trailer and the owner of the tractor alone is liable to pay the compensation. But the said plea was rejected by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also rejected the appeal as not maintainable. But he referred the matter to a Division Bench, which inturn had referred it to a Full Bench. When the matter was pending consideration by the Full Bench, execution petitions were filed. Challenging the same Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court. The said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the appeal before the Honourable Apex Court. While disposing of the appeal, the Honourable Apex Court held as follows:- "IN a given case, the statutory liability of an INsurance Company, therefore, either may be nil or a sum lower than the amount specified under Section 140 of the Act. Thus, when a separate application is filed in terms of Section 140 of the Act, in terms of Section 168 thereof, an insurer has to be given a notice in which event, it goes without saying, it would be open to the INsurance Company to plead and prove that it is not liable at all. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that there can be more than one award particularly when a sum paid may have to be adjusted from the final award. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an award for enforcing the right under Section 140 of the Act is also required to be passed under Section 168 only after the parties concerned have filed their pleadings and have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A Claims Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that the conditions precedent specified in Section 140 of the Act have been substantiated, which is the basis for making an award. ...................... So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental INsurance Company Ltd, Vs Brij Mohan and others [2007(7)SCALE 753] and it was held that the INsurane Company has no liability. IN view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the mattes to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court Smt.Yallwwas case (supra) and Brij Mohans case (supra)."