ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M MALLESAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantapur in O.P.No.248 of 1994, dated 04-07-2000.

(2.) The O.P. was filed by the first claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation on account of injuries received by him and after death of the first claimant, the legal representatives came on record and claimed compensation on account of death of the deceased.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the second respondent, who is the Insurance Company, took a plea that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party i.e., the owner of the vehicle. The second respondent is only subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and when the owner of the vehicle is not a party and when he is not made liable, in the absence of owner of the vehicle the Insurance Company cannot be made liable. The Tribunal observed that it is true that the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to be not a necessary party and the injured or the deceased are tto be indemnified by the insurer for the use of the vehicle and whether the presence of the owner of the vehicle is essential in the petition. The Insurance Company liability is co-existence with the owner's liability and therefore, unless the owner's liability is established, the Insurance Company will not come into picture to indemnify the owner's liability. This is. a general rule. While making the above observation, the Tribunal further observed that the presence of owner of the vehicle is only of an academic interest and the claim, if it is otherwise maintainable, cannot be dismissed on mere technicality of not impleading the owner of the vehicle as the very legislation and the Tribunal should see that the spirit of the act, but not the technical lapses, especially when this technical lapse causes hardship to the persons who are really entitled for compensation. Though the claimants examined owner of the vehicle as a witness, they did not choose to implead him as the respondent.