Case Note & Summary
This first appeal arose from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the dependents of deceased Shindhu, who died in a road accident on 22 March 2009. The accident involved an auto-rickshaw in which the deceased was traveling and a Tata Indica car. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tata Indica car and awarded compensation to the claimants. The appellant, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., which was the insurer of the offending vehicle, challenged the award on the ground that the driver of the Tata Indica car was neither impleaded as a party nor examined as a witness, and therefore the findings on negligence were vitiated. The claimants argued that the driver was not a necessary party and the insurance company could have summoned him as a witness. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa, (2008) 13 SCC 198, and a Bombay High Court judgment following it, the court held that a finding of negligence cannot be recorded without the driver being made a party to the proceedings, either by impleadment or by examination as a witness. The court observed that the driver had not been given an opportunity to make a representation, and the evidence to record a finding of negligence was necessarily inadequate. The court noted that neither the claimants nor the insurance company had summoned the driver, and the Tribunal did not exercise its power to call the driver as a court witness. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after impleading the driver as a party-respondent. The Tribunal was directed to issue notice to the driver, give him an opportunity to raise a defence, and dispose of the claim petition within six months. The appeal was allowed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Impleadment of Driver - Requirement of Driver as Party or Witness for Negligence Finding - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - In a claim petition under Section 166, the Tribunal recorded a finding of negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle without him being impleaded as a party or examined as a witness. The High Court held that under the principles in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa, (2008) 13 SCC 198, such a finding vitiates the proceedings as the evidence is inadequate. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal after joining the driver as a party-respondent and giving him an opportunity to be heard. (Paras 3-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the findings of rashness and negligence recorded by the Tribunal are vitiated due to non-impleadment of the driver of the offending vehicle as a party and non-examination of the driver as a witness?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal with direction to implead driver as party-respondent, issue notice, and give opportunity of hearing. Tribunal to decide within six months. Parties to bear own costs.
Law Points
- Driver of offending vehicle must be made a party to claim petition
- either as respondent or witness
- failure vitiates finding of negligence
- employer and employee are joint tortfeasors under law of negligence
- proceedings require examination of driver for adequate evidence
- non-joinder of driver makes evidence inadequate
