NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DAYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company, against the award dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and seeking the setting aside of the order dated 14.5.2001, dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) IN the petition, it was alleged that a motor vehicular accident had taken place, on the night intervening 27/28.5.1997, resulting in the death of Jai Bhagwan deceased. This accident had taken place between two vehicles involved in the accident. It was alleged that the claim petition was filed by Smt. Daya Rani widow of Jai Bhagwan and Smt. Shamo Devi mother of Jai Bhagwan deceased, seeking the grant of compensation for the death of Jai Bhagwan deceased. The petitioner-Insurance Company filed written statement and denied the accident in question and it was alleged that even if the accident had taken place, it was due to rash and negligent driving of Jai Bhagwan deceased, who was driving one of the vehicles at the time of accident. It was alleged that in the said petition, one of the issues framed was as to whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle, resulting in the death of Jai Bhagwan. It was alleged that while deciding the claim petition, it was found by the Tribunal that this issue was not happily worded and that the only thing required to be seen in the said petition was that as to whether the death of Jai Bhagwan had occurred in the use of a motor vehicle and that the proof of negligence was not required to be seen, while granting compensation and it was also not material as to whether the accident had taken place on account of the fault and negligence of Jai Bhagwan himself or someone else. It was alleged that thereupon the Tribunal gave the award in the sum of Rs. 3,24,000/-, as compensation. It was further alleged that in fact, in respect of the aforesaid accident, five claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal and the same were decided by the Tribunal on the same date. It was alleged that in the remaining four claim petitions, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, as it was a head-on collusion. It was alleged that in the present case the Tribunal had held that the question of negligence was not required to be determined. It was alleged that while doing so, the Tribunal hd mis-interpreted the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged that against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, Civil Revision No. 361 of 2000 was filed in this Court, challenging the aforesaid award dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Tribunal. It was alleged that the said revision petition came up for hearing on 12.2.2001 and the same was remanded back. It ws alleged that after the decision of this Court, the petitioner-Insurance Company moved before the Tribunal, in the light of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 361 of 2000 and prayed for the review of the order. It was alleged that the Tribunal wrongly dismissed the review application. It was alleged that the Tribunal has passed the contradictory awards, in the various petitions arising out of the same accident, inasmuch as in four claim petitions, it was held that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles and that they were equally responsible, whereas these findings had not been recorded in the claim petition in question. It ws accordingly prayed that the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal should be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and have gone through the record carefully.