NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed by the learned Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khargone, West Nimar (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 32 of 1993 on 31.8.1999.

(2.) The claimant-respondent No. 1 was working with the State Bank of Indore as an auditor at its Head Office at Indore, on the date of accident. On 19.10.1992, when he was going with his colleague Sudheer Reghe as pillion rider on a scooter bearing the registration No. MP 09-F 9637, Gulam AH, respondent No. 2, drove motor cycle bearing registration No. MKN 4830 rashly negligently, which dashed against the scooter and respondent No. 1 sustained injuries due to the accident. Dilip Kumar, respondent No. 1, preferred Claim Case No. 32 of 1993 against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant. Sudheer Reghe, who also sustained injuries in the accident, preferred the Claim Case No. 31 of 1993 against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and the appellant, alleging negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, who also suffered injuries in the same accident, preferred Claim Case No. 26 of 1994 against the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and the appellant. The learned Tribunal, vide common award dated 31.8.1999 decided all the aforesaid three claim cases and passed an award of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and appellant. Hence, appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging its liability.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in a claim case filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the third party alone is entitled to get the compensation and the claimant-respondent No. 1 was not a third party, therefore, he was not entitled to get any compensation, hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The claimant was riding on the scooter bearing registration No. MP 09-F 9637 and alleged accident was the result of the collision with the motor cycle bearing registration No. MKN 4830. The claim was filed alleging the negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle, therefore, in relation to the motor cycle the position of respondent No. 1 was that of third party. The drivers of the scooter and motor cycle have been found to be equally negligent and, therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot be categorised as the first or second party. The position of respondent No. 1 in relation to the motor cycle causing the accident is that of third party. Hence, he is entitled to get compensation from the owner, driver and the insurance company of the motor cycle having registration No. MKN 4830.