MANIKLAL DUBEY Vs. MOHD ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') have been filed by the Claimants aggrieved of the common order dated 10-1-1995, passed in Claim Case No. 53/94, by IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandla (Tribunal) whereby the applications under Section 166 of the Act for compensation have been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the appeals are thus : On 24-3-1994 a passenger bus No. MPK 3588 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 was carrying passengers from Nainpur to Mandla. At about 10. 00 a. m. when it reached unmanned Railway crossing of village Limaria, it collided with narrow gauge South-Eastern Railway train coming from Mandla, as a result eight persons died and many others were injured. The legal representatives of the deceased persons and the persons who sustained injuries filed applications under Section 166 of the Act against the owner driver and insurer of the passenger bus No. MPK 3588, to claim compensation on the averments that the bus was being driven in a high speed, it was not in control of the bus driver, which collided with Railway train. Averment of negligence of Railways and its authorities were also made, but, the Railways, its authorities and the driver of the Railways were not impleaded as parties to the applications. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the driver and owner of the bus after notice remained exparte. The respondent No. 3 the insurer of the bus filed common written statement in all the claim cases, wherein preliminary objections were raised that the accident was due to collision between the passenger bus and Railway train, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and to award compensation, and proper and necessary parties, i. e. , Union of India/railways and its driver were not made parties to the applications for compensation, hence, for non-joinder of the necessary parties the applications for compensation are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE Tribunal after hearing parties on the preliminary issues held that the claimants have pleaded a case of composite negligence against the offending passenger bus and Railways, hence, in the absence of Union of India/railway administration and its driver, the rash and negligent act of the Railway administration cannot be determined. The Tribunal further held that it has jurisdiction to pass award only against the owner, driver and insurer of the motor vehicle but has no jurisdiction to fix the liability against the Union of India/railway administration and its driver. Hence the Tribunal dismissed all the applications for compensation observing that such claim can only be entertained and decided by the civil court.