NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KYRMEN PASLEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions involving a common question of law and of facts were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant can be fastened upon the insurer, who was not a party to such settlement, is the common question of law involved in this revision. In Civil Revision Petition No. 36 (SH) of 2011, the facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a registered company and is engaged in the business of insurance with its headquarters at Kolkata and is carrying on its business, inter alia, at Shillong. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition being M.A.C.T. No. 10 of 2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jowai claiming compensation on account of the death of his wife, the late Medris Nialang, in a vehicular accident, which took place 20th May, 2007. The petitioner was impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the case as the vehicle bearing Registration Number ML-10-728 which was reported to be involved was insured with it under Policy No. B-2005110 with its validity up to 16th October, 2007. The petitioner contested the claim petition by filing a written statement as well as an additional written statement by taking the stance, among others, that the driver of the vehicle in question did got have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident in question, which is in violation of the policy condition of the insurance policy. The Tribunal by its order dated 4th June, 2008 passed an interim order on 4th June, 2008 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 1 by way of no fault liability. However, during the pendency of the case, the case was referred to the Lok; Adalat to be held on 17th September, 2011. The petitioner did not appear before the Lok Adalat, but duly informed the Lok Adalat that it would like to contest the claim petition on merit. The case of the petitioner is that the Lok Adalat, however, in its absence proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order dated 17th September, 2011 setting the claim case on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the claimant and the insured and awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner to pay the awarded amount within one month. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal most illegally accepted the terms of settlement of the Lok Adalat and passed a decree to that effect on 17th September, 2011.

(2.) In Civil Revision Petition No. 37 (SH) of 2011, the respondent No. 1 filed a claim case being MACT No. 9 of 2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jowai claiming compensation for the death of his wife, the late Elbi Nialang in the same motor accident case. As the petitioner was impleaded as one of the opposite parties, it contested the claim petition and filed its written statement and additional written statement by taking the same stance as in the earlier case. The Tribunal by its order dated 4 June, 2008 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 1 by way of no fault liability, which was complied with. As in the earlier case, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement by the parties. The petitioner did not put in its appearance before the Lok Adalat on the appointed day, but duly intimated the Lok Adalat that would like to contest the claim petition on merit. As in the earlier case, the Lok Adalat, in the absence of the petitioner, proceeded with the conciliation exercise between the claimant and owner of the vehicle and passed the impugned order dated 17 September, 2011 on the basis of their agreement and settled the case by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to the respondent No. 1 by way of compensation for the death of his wife. Aggrieved by this, this revision is preferred by the petitioner-insurer.

(3.) I have gone through both the impugned awards passed in the cases arising out of the same vehicular accident. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner was contesting the claim petition on impleadment and not only as a notice under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') ground, among others, of breach of policy conditions, namely, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Consequently, it had every right to contest the claim petition, which was independent of the right of the insured to contest the claim petition. Yet the Lok Adalat proceeded to settle the case between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant in the absence of the petitioner, who had earlier intimated that it desired to contest the claim petition on merit: that means it was not interested in settlement of the case. The Lok Adalat, nevertheless, settled the case between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle in the absence of the petitioner and, accordingly, directed it (the insurer) to pay another Rs. 3 lakh as full and final settlement by way of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle/insured, which was in addition to the Rs. 50,000 already paid by it by way of interim award under Section 140 of the Act. The fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Lok Adalat on the date fixed for the conciliation proceeding and had duty intimated the Lok Adalat of its desire to contest the claim petition or merit, is borne out by the impugned orders passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, who had also presided over the same Lok Adalat, wherein it was recorded that "opposite party, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd. absent with intimation that they could not attend and desired to contest the case on merit before the normal Court. Further they have acknowledged receipt notice of Lok Adalat Court to be held today." Notwithstanding the absence of the petitioner, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceeded to settle the case purportedly on compromise between the claimant, the respondent No. 1, and the owner of the vehicle the respondent No. 2 but in the absence of the petitioner. The Lok Adalat had also recorded the finding that the driving licence of the driver vas "found valid as on that date of accident". At this stage, it may be noted that the Lok Adalat had vide Annexure V awarded Rs. 3 lakh as full and final settlement and directed the petitioner to indemnify the respondent No. 1. However, vide Annexure VI, the Tribunal, purportedly on the basis of the said settlement, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3.50 lakh to the claimant within a period of one month from the date of settlement of the case. The bindingness of this award upon the petitioner, as noted earlier, is called into question in this revision.