VIJAY SINGH Vs. NAURANGLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the owner of a vehicle which met with an accident wherein one person died. A proceeding for determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act was initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short M. A. C. T.) at Jhunjhunu and notice was issued to all the concerned parties including the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver also. It is not in dispute that the notice were duly served on the appellant-owner-Shri Vijay Singh as also the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the driver of the vehicle. But the appellant-owner of the vehicle inspite of service of notice on him regarding initiation of the proceedings before the M. A. C. T. Jhunjhunu for determining the compensation to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased who met with a fatal accident, failed to respond to the notice although it is asserted that he had appeared through a counsel. Be that as it may, the fact remains that neither the appellant appeared in person nor his counsel appeared to contest the proceedings at Jhunjhunu. Fortunately or unfortunately for the appellant, the proceeding was transferred to Khetri since it transpired that the jurisdiction for the claim lay at Khetri. Fresh notice therefore was issued to the parties concerned but it is asserted by the appellant that notice for the second time was not issued to him by the transferee court as a result of which the appellant failed to appear is the transferee court and participate in the proceedings at Khetri although service of notice on him from Jhunjhunu is admitted. THE proceedings ultimately concluded and an amount of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest was determined in favour of the claimants/legal representatives of the deceased but the plea of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. respondent No. 6. therein was allowed by the Tribunal which was to the effect that the Insurance Company is not liable to discharge the liability of compensation since the vehicle was driven by a driver who was not holding a valid licence. In view of this circumstance the Insurance Company was exonerated of the liability to pay the compensation and the same ultimately was fastened on the owner of the vehicle who is the appellant herein.

(2.) ASSAILING the judgment and order of the Tribunal, it has been contended by Mr. Ranjan on his behalf that if the appellant- owner of the vehicle would have had the opportunity of contesting the plea of the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding a valid licence, perhaps this situation would not have cropped up but in the process, the counsel for the appellant is missing that it is only the appellant who has to blame himself for this situation for if the failed to appear and participate in the proceeding inspite of service of notice on him by the tribunal at Jhunjhunu, it is not available for him to argue at this stage that he was wrongly denied opportunity to contest the plea of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Permitting such plea of the appellant/owner of the vehicle at this stage in order to challenge the award merely on account of a situation which is a creation of his own fault, cannot be allowed to be urged by denying the claimant to avail the amount of compensation. Hence payment of the amount of compensation at no cost can be allowed to be forestalled. However, looking to the assertion of the appellant that the driving licence of the driver is perfectly legal and valid, it is left open for him to initiate a fresh proceeding against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to determine as to whether the Insurance policy was in fact valid and whether the vehicle was driven by a driver owning a perfectly legal and valid licence. This plea of the owner of the vehicle who had failed to appear in the proceeding and apprise himself of the transfer of the proceeding is not allowed to be raised at this belated stage causing serious prejudice to the claimants who although are at no fault in any manner, will ultimately have to bear the brunt of a protracted litigation. Hence I am firmly of the view that this dispute between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company in regard to the validity of the licence of the driver who had failed to appear before the tribunal should not be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage before the High Court when the quantum of compensation is not under challenge. The appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle is therefore dismissed subject to the aforesaid liberty. .