HEMCHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. DR. HARMOHAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN award was passed in a motor accident claims case in favour of the claimant who was injured in an accident which had taken place on November 14, 1968, at about 2.15 p.m. in the City of Gauhati itself. The claimant is a medical practitioner and his case is that he had sustained head injury with fractures in different parts of the body and had undergone pain and suffering. On being satisfied that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver, a sum of Rs. 20,000 has been awarded in favour of the claimant which, as per the award, "will be realised from the insurer, the opposite party No. 3, M/s. Phoneix Assurance Company Limited, Gauhati, or other authority which has taken the responsibility of the business of the said company". This appeal has been preferred, jointly by the owner of the vehicle, the driver of the same and the insurance company.

(2.) SRI Das for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal inasmuch as the owner and the driver could not have come up to this court. Under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act, for short), an appeal can be preferred by "any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal". We have, therefore, to decide whether the owner and the driver can be regarded as persons aggrieved. This aspect is important not only for deciding the question of maintainability, but also to see if the insurer (in case it alone could file the appeal) could agitate before us the question of negligence or quantum of compensation.

(3.) IT has, therefore, to be seen whether the owner could have preferred the present appeal. As alluded, Section 110D has conferred the right of appeal on a "person aggrieved" by the award. The appeal being a creature of a statute, this right can flow only from what has been laid down in the aforesaid section. Though no compensation has been made payable by the owner, Sri Bhuyan contends that the owner could none the less prefer the appeal because it is the negligence of his driver which has led to the award of compensation and which has been made payable by the insurer because of the provisions in Sections 95 and 96 of the Act.