BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. GUDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose Accordingly this order shall govern disposal of two appeals heard today analogously, of Misc. Appeal Nos. 10 and 11 of 1989.

(2.) BY the impugned order assailed in these two appeals, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, has made liable jointly New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , impleaded as respondent in both these appeals and the common appellant, Bhagwan Singh, in both appeals. It is submitted that two appeals are filed because originally two claim cases were registered, namely, Claim Case Nos. 20 and 21 of 1988, which were consolidated for analogous trial. Each of them is made liable to pay to the claimants, impleaded as respondents in both appeals, Rs. 7,500/- each to make up total entitlement of Rs. 15,000/- of the claimants of late Diwan. Admittedly, there was a collision between the two tractors and that accident resulted in death of one Diwan. True, it has to be finally decided if on account of rash and negligent driving of any of the tractors the death occurred. That decision must await final disposal of the two claim cases on merit after evidence is recorded.

(3.) AT this stage, there can atleast be no doubt about entitlement of the dependants-claimants of late Diwan for payment due under law in respect of the liability contemplated under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The short question is whether in passing the impugned order that liability has been properly assessed and the direction has been properly made by the Tribunal for discharge of that liability against the insurer and appellant, Bhagwan Singh. It is not disputed that collision took place between the tractors bearing registration Nos. CPH 4279 and CPG 5428. It is also not in dispute that one of the tractors owned by Bhagwan Singh and another tractor, CPG 5428, are duly insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. That being the position, the Tribunal, in my view, rightly apportioned tentative liability under Section 92-A by making both Bhagwan Singh and the insurer liable to discharge that liability. It need not be given stress that by the impugned order final determination of liability under Section 110-A is not made and, therefore, when that is done in passing final award under Section 110-B the rights and liability inter se of the tortfeasors and the insurer be determined. It shall be then possible for the Tribunal to pass order for restitution, if necessary, in favour of any tortfeasor or even in favour of the insurer if that is found necessary in view of the determination finally of the liability under Section 110-A.