NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO Vs. PHOOLWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narayan lost his life two years ago while commuting in a motor vehicle. This happened in the City of Gwalior, where the easy and convenient mode of public transport is the veritable "Tempo". He was sitting by the side of the driver. The accident occurred when his Tempo'(Registration No. M. P. G. 7094) dashed against another Tempo (Registration No. M. P. G. 9848) which, according to the appellants, was stationary.

(2.) An application under S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the 'Act', for instant relief was filed by the dependents of Narayan, - his widow, his mother and his minor son, aged 9 years. In the petition, the persons impleaded as opposite parties were the driver and the owner of the Tempo bearing Registration No. M. P. G. 9848 and also the concerned Insurance Company. Objections were filed by all, contesting their liability, but without success. Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') allowed the petition, passing an award of Rs. 15,000/-, which amount is statutorily fixed, and directed the same to be paid within one month. This was done on 15-2-1985, though the application was filed on 29-11-1984. However, it was two years after the accident and filing of the main claim under S. 110-A of the Act.

(3.) In the present appeal, the insurer as well as the owner have come to this Court and have made an unholy effort to contest a holy claim, for which Legislature advisedly laid a legal basis in the enactment of the very wholesome provision of S. 92-A. Appellants' counsel Shri S. K. Dubey, has made strenuous effort to support the stand taken in the appeal and has forcefully pleaded appellants' case, relying mainly on a reported decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court - Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Beasa Devi, 1985 Acc CJ 1 . He has also tried to find fault with the impugned order which, according to him, is very cryptic and is not sustainable in law being bereft of the requisite finding, necessary for passing the award. Counsel has prayed for my consideration mainly a three-fold submission. Firstly, the Tempo bearing registration No. M. P. G. 9848 was not the "offending vehicle" as it was not moving at the time of the accident and, therefore, it incurred no liability in terms of S. 92-A. Secondly, the claim petition ought to have been dismissed in limine for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the "offending vehicle", namely, the Tempo bearing registration No. M. P. G. 7094. Thirdly, the scope of S. 92-A ex facie, excludes claim for/by persons who are not pedestrians because the new provision was only meant to relieve misery arising out of "hit and run" situation.