Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident on 8/2/2003 when Manoj Mahadeorao Yete, aged 21, was traveling as a passenger in a minidor (MH29/2963) from Bori to Ner. At Bori Shivar on Ladkhed to Darwha road, a TATA407 Tempo (MH31/AP2124) coming from the opposite direction at uncontrollable speed dashed against the minidor, causing Manoj's death on the spot. The parents of the deceased (respondents no. 1 and 2) filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The Tribunal passed an award on 18/6/2009 in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007, holding the driver of the TATA407 Tempo negligent and directing the insurer (appellant, New India Assurance Company) to pay compensation. Aggrieved, the insurer appealed to the Bombay High Court. The appellant argued that both vehicles were responsible and that the claim petition should have been dismissed for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the minidor as party respondents. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the TATA407 driver was based on the police report and other material, and was not shown to be perverse. The court held that the non-joinder of the minidor's owner and insurer does not warrant dismissal, as claimants are not required to join all tortfeasors. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Non-joinder of necessary parties - The Tribunal's finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle (TATA407 Tempo) was based on evidence and not shown to be perverse - The non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the minidor does not vitiate the claim as the claimants are not required to join all tortfeasors - Held that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in not dismissing the claim petition for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the minidor as party respondents, and whether the finding of negligence against the driver of the TATA407 Tempo was perverse.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 18/6/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007 is upheld.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Negligence
- Non-joinder of necessary parties
- Perverse finding
- Compensation
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 174
First Appeal No. 1275 of 2009
Mr. S. N. Dhanagare for Appellant; None present for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Mahadeo s/o Maroti Yete, Sau. Parwatibai w/o Mahadeo Yete, Sandeep s/o Ambagir Giri (dismissed), Ajay s/o Gangakisan Bhoot
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation arising from a fatal motor accident.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (insurer) sought dismissal of the claim petition or reduction of compensation on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties and perverse finding of negligence.
Filing Reason
Appellant insurer aggrieved by the Tribunal's award holding it liable to pay compensation.
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha passed award dated 18/6/2009 in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007, awarding compensation to claimants.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in not dismissing the claim petition for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the minidor as party respondents?
Whether the finding of negligence against the driver of the TATA407 Tempo was perverse?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant insurer contended that both vehicles were responsible for the accident and the claim petition ought to have been dismissed because the owner and insurer of the minidor were not joined as party respondents.
Appellant argued that the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the TATA407 driver was not based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The finding of negligence by the Tribunal was based on evidence and not shown to be perverse. Non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the minidor does not vitiate the claim as claimants are not required to join all tortfeasors.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18/6/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007, appellant the New India Assurance Company has approached this Court via present First Appeal.
Learned Counsel for appellant Insurer contends that both the minidor and TATA407 Tempo were responsible for the accident and learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground that owner and Insurer of the minidor, in which deceased Manoj was traveling were not joined as party respondents to the claim petition as the case was the one under...
Procedural History
Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007 was filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha, which passed award on 18/6/2009. Aggrieved, the insurer filed First Appeal No. 1275 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 13/8/2013.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
