UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. MACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, same issue is involved and as such they are being decided by this common order. These writ petitions have been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 9.11.2011, whereby the application filed by it under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of owner, driver and insurance company of Jeep No. RJ 14 TA 9731 as party respondents to the claim petitions, had been rejected. The claim petitions had been filed before the learned Tribunal by different claimants in respect of an accident which had taken place on 7.6.2011.

(2.) IT was with regard to the accident that a first information report (101/2011) was lodged by Rajendra Singh son of Mohan Singh stating that he along with about 30 family members including women and children were going to Baneshwar Mata Mandir, Chittorgarh in Jeep Nos. RJ 14 TA 6765 and RJ 14 TA 9731. The jeep (9731) was being driven by his brother Dheer Singh. While they were on the high-way, a trailor (no. RJ 09 GA 3271) which was was going ahead of them, suddenly applied breaks. Resultantly, jeep (9731) which was coming from behind, collided with the trailor. In the said accident, 10 persons died and 11 persons got injured. All the said persons were the occupants of Jeep No.RJ 14 TA 9731. After registration of the report, the investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the trailor for being negligent in driving.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY and during the pendency of the claim petition, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC came to be filed by the non-claimant, insurance company, before the learned tribunal. Such applications were filed in all the 21 petitions which were pending before the learned tribunal for award of compensation, either on account of death or for injuries sustained by the occupant-claimants in the jeep. It was stated in the application that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep no. RJ 14 TA 9731 which is evident from the fact that the jeep had dashed into the trailor (3271), from the rear side, when it was on a high speed. Further, it was stated that an opportunity to avoid the accident was available only with the driver of the jeep. As the impact of the accident was grave, 10 persons died and 11 persons got injured who were the occupants of the jeep. The damage caused to the vehicle indicates that the jeep was running at a very high speed and was over loaded. It was also averred in the application that mere submission of challan against the driver of the trailor is not sufficient to hold that the driver was guilty for the offences at this stage as it is not the conclusive evidence. It was not reflected from the challan as to why the driver of the trailor had applied breaks suddenly. The owner, driver and the insurance company of the jeep (9731), being necessary parties to the claim petition, had not been so impleaded and in absence of it, the claim petition suffers from the infirmity of non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the prayer for impleadment of owner, driver and the insurance company of the jeep was made before the learned tribunal.