Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed on 7 March 2002 in three motor accident claim petitions: M.A.C. Nos. 572 of 1998, 573 of 1998 and 80 of 1999. The appellant, Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Ganni Patel, was the owner of a tempo bearing No. MH-20/A-6664, which was involved in an accident on 23 November 1996 at about 22:30 hours on Majalgaon-Pathri road near village Adgaon. A tractor bearing No. MH-22/B-6381 attached with trolley bearing No. MH-22/6052, coming from the opposite direction, allegedly dashed against the tempo. Three passengers—Abdul Gafar Abdul Rauf, Rabbani Chandsab Bagwan, and Sayyad Khajamiya—sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. They were travelling to Nanded to attend a religious function 'Isthemas'. The dependents and legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal, seeking compensation from the owners and insurers of both vehicles. The Tribunal, after considering oral and documentary evidence, granted compensation to the claimants but held only the tempo owner (the appellant) liable, exonerating the owners and insurer of the tractor and trolley as well as the insurer of the tempo. The Tribunal found that the tempo driver was solely negligent and that the passengers were travelling in a goods vehicle in breach of the insurance policy conditions, thereby absolving the insurer of the tempo from liability. The appellant challenged the award in three separate first appeals (Nos. 627, 628 and 629 of 2003), contending that the tractor and trolley were at fault, that the FIR was lodged against both drivers, indicating contributory negligence, and that the insurer of the tempo should at least be directed to pay and recover. The appellant relied on Vasant Waman Aher v. Kalu Jana Gaveet and Ors. The respondents, including the claimants, the owners of the tractor and trolley, and the insurers, supported the impugned award. The insurer of the tempo argued that since the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle was not covered, no pay and recover order could be passed, relying on United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sukumarbai Suryakant Nikam. The High Court, presided over by Justice Sandipkumar C. More, heard the arguments and examined the evidence on negligence. The court observed that the accident was not disputed and that the compensation assessment was also not challenged. It noted that the FIR was lodged against both drivers but held that the mere lodging of an FIR against both drivers does not mean both were equally responsible, and that negligence had to be determined by the Tribunal in a summary inquiry irrespective of the criminal court finding. The court then proceeded to scrutinize the evidence on negligence, including the eye-witness testimony of Sayyad Rais Sayyad Razak and the tractor driver's rebuttal evidence. The available excerpt of the judgment ends mid-analysis, and the final decision on the appeals is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claim - Appeal Against Tribunal Award - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (applicable provisions not specified) - The appellant, owner of tempo involved in fatal accident, challenged common judgment and award passed by MACT granting compensation solely against him while exonerating owners and insurers of tractor, trolley, and tempo - The High Court heard three first appeals together as they arose from same accident and common award - Held: The appeals arise from common judgment and award dated 7 March 2002 and were heard together (Paras 1-2). B) Motor Accident Claim - Determination of Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (applicable provisions not specified) - The issue of which driver was negligent was contested; appellant claimed tractor/trolley dashed tempo, while respondents claimed tempo driver solely at fault - The Tribunal examined oral and documentary evidence, including eye-witness and spot panchanama - Held: Negligence must be determined by Tribunal in summary inquiry irrespective of finding of criminal court, and mere lodging of FIR against both drivers does not imply equal responsibility (Paras 8-10). C) Motor Accident Claim - Liability of Insurer for Passengers in Goods Vehicle - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (applicable provisions not specified) - The insurer of tempo contended that passengers were carried in goods vehicle in contravention of policy terms, so risk not covered - The appellant argued that insurer should be liable or at least pay and recover - Held: The court was examining whether insurer of tempo could be exonerated for breach of policy conditions; respondent insurer relied on United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sukumarbai Suryakant Nikam (Paras 3-4, 6). D) Motor Accident Claim - Pay and Recover Order - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (applicable provisions not specified) - The appellant alternatively prayed for pay and recover order against insurer of tempo - Respondent insurer opposed, arguing that when risk is not covered, no pay and recover can be granted - Held: The court was considering the alternative prayer; the final ruling on this point was not included in the available excerpt (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly exonerated the owners and insurer of the tractor and trolley, and whether the insurer of the tempo can be exonerated for breach of policy conditions; whether a pay and recover order can be passed against the insurer of the tempo
Law Points
- Negligence determined by Tribunal in summary inquiry irrespective of criminal court finding
- FIR against both drivers does not imply equal responsibility
- insurer not liable for passengers in goods vehicle when risk not covered
- pay and recover order not available when insurer not liable
