LAWS(GAU)-2003-5-36

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUKLA DEBNATH

Decided On May 30, 2003
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
V/S
SUKLA DEBNATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a common question of law arises in the above Civil Revision Petitions, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common Judgment and Order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. C. Majumder, learned counsel as well as Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) A brief factual background of both the cases would be necessary as a prelude. The Civil Revision Petition No. 15 of 2003, filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. records a challenge to the order dated 21.1.2002, passed by the learned Motor Accident C laims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Misc. (MAC) 52 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards 'no fault liability' in favour of the claimant-respondents. The respondents No. 1 and 2 being the claimants filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) (herein after referred to as "the Act") claiming interim compensation on account of the death of one Manik Debnath in a motor vehicle accident on 11.10.1999. The offending vehicle being TR-01-1299, a Mini Bus, was insured with the petitioner Company. The allegation was that the deceased was travelling in the said bus which met with an accident due to mechanical failure, as a result of which he met his death. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the insured as well. The petitioner insurer in its written objection, inter alia, took the plea that as the deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle, he was not the 'third party' and, therefore, under the policy he was not entitled to any compensation from it. The petitioner in-surer further pointed out that on the accident, two other claim applications had already been filed by the mother of the deceased and the same were pending before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, on a consideration of the claim petition as well as the written objection and the documents annexed thereto, held that the respondents No. 1 and 2, the claimants, were entitled to receive interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition and directed the petitionercompany to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of the order. It is this order which is under challenge in the aforementioned Civil Revision Petition. There was a delay in filing this petition which, however, has already been condoned by this court. The Civil Revision Petition No. 17 of 2003 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Award dated 27.11.1997, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 98 of 1996, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. in favour of the respondent No. I/claimant. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1/claimant out of a Motor vehicle accident on 5.8.1994 in which the vehicle No. TRT- 2345 (Jeep) was involved. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner company. It was contended in the claim petition that the accident fiad taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle and as a result of the said accident, the respondent No. 1/ claimant was seriously injured and had to take treatment in GB. Hospital, Agartala from 5.8.1994 to 8.10.1994. He claimed that he suffered compound and multiple fracture on leg with other injuries on the chest and various parts of the body, as a result of which he had become permanently dis-abled. An amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- was claimed as compensation. The petitionercompany in its written statement while contending that the claim was highly inflated, imaginary and exorbitant, denied that the respondent No. I/claimant had suffered permanent dis-ability following the injuries sustained in the accident. It further asserted that the vehicle was not being driven at the relevant time by a person having valid driving licence and that the same also did not have valied documents. The learned Tribunal, however, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced in the proceeding, awarded the aforementioned sum as compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant holding, inter alia, that he suffered permanent disablement out of the injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioner company challenged this award before this court by filing an application under Article 227 of the constitution of India which was registered as Civ. Rev. No. 9 of 1998. The said petition was with drawn on 18.2.2003 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh, Appellant Vrs. National Insurance co. Ltd. and Another, Respondents in Civil Appeal No.557 of 2003 ( reported in 2003 AIR SCW 930). After the completion of the official formalities thereafter, the Divisional office of the petitioner company instructed its learned counsel on 28.3.2003 to file the present revision petition whereafter the learned counsel took six days in preparing the same. In the process, therefore, a delay of 5 years 37 days had occurred, if computed from the date of the judgment and award. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been contended that out of the aforesaid period, for 5 years the earlier civil Revision petition was pending before this court for adjudication. The decision to withdraw the same following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case was taken by its learned counsel and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Divisional Office which ultimately approved the move to file the present petition. This was on 28.3.03, that is after 48 days of the date of the withdrawal. Thereafter, the learned counsel took six days in preparing the revision petition. According to the petitioner, therefore, the period for which the earlier civil Revision was pending before this court, is liable to be excluded as in view of the state of law prevailing then, it was pursuing its remedy before this court in the form of an application under Article 227 of the constitution of India. It has contended that after the said petition was withdrawn, it took about 54 days in completing the necessary formalities and preparing the petition. It has, therefore, prayed that in the above premises, the delay deserves to be condoned.