United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Serjerao and Ors.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant (described hereinafter as 'the E Insurance Company'). The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 3. The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to a Tractor , as labourers. They claimed to have suffered injuries because the Tractor with the Trolly in each case met with an accident. Petitions claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') F were filed along with application under Section 140 of the Act. Order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex-officio · Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (in short 'the MACT) on the principle of no fault liability. The Insurance Company took the stand · that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the Trolly and iG .1, the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay compensation. This plea was rejected by the MACT. Appeal in tenns of Section 173 of the Act in , each case was preferred before the High Court. Learned Single Judge, primajacie, was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable. Neve1theless, he referred the matter to the Division Bench, which, it 1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R. A appears referred it to a Full Bench. While the matter was pending consideration by the Full Bench, execution proceedings were filed. The.~fore, writ petitions were filed before the High Cowt The High Court, by the impugned order in each c;ase, dismissed the writ petitions holding that thqugh arguable questions were involved, the writ petitions did not B de~rve CQI1Sidera,tion. 4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant­ Insurance Gompany subviitted that the appeals in terms of Section 173 of the Ac;t we.re m,aipta)nable arid in any event, the {nsurap.ce Company has no liability in resp~t of the persons ti:awlling in trQllies a,ttached to C the Tractors. 5. There is no appea{an,ce on behalf of the respondents when the 111atter was called. 6. So far as the question of maintainability aspect ~s conceme~ the D issue is concluded by ajudgment of this Court in Smt. Yallwwa & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Lt4 and Anr., (2007) 8 SCALE 77. .... J 7. I.n paragraphs 16 to 19 of the jl:lclgment, it was observed as follows: '-'16. The ql,l~On,wlJ.ich is require.cl to be CQnsi(iere,d is.wlltlt WOWd be the meaning o{ the tern:i 'award' when sµch ~ co.Qtenc~ioP: is · rais~. Altli<?IJgp_ in a given sitpation having regar(l to the. liab.ility of the owner o{ the ve.hicle, a claim Tribunat ne~ n<;>t g0_ i}1_tQ the questjqn ~ to whether the. owner of tl).e ve.wcle in ques.tion was 1;1t fault or not_, but_ c!_eterq:lln_<tt_i_on o( t_he Ii_[!bility o( the_ in_~ilran.ce company,. in QW opinjoI),, slfill~s on a_ dif:fer~nt. fQoth1g. When_ a statutory liability h_as been illlposed upon tbe owner, in our opinion, the same cruwot. e.xtend, the lial;>iJity of an ~r to indemnify the owner, although in terms of the insurance policy or und~r the Act, it would-not b~ liable tl1erefor. - - 17~ In a giv~n ~e, the st,atutory liability, of an insurance company, therefore, eitl;ier-may be nil or a sum lower· than the amount specified_ 4nqer-Section 140 of the-Act l'hus, when a se.pai:ate applic;ation is file<! in terms of Sectjon 140 o~ the A~t, in t~m,::is of Section 168 thereof, an insurer has to be given a notice in which -· \ UNITEDINDIAINSURANCECO.LTD. v. SERJERAO 1153 [PASAYAT,J.] event, it goes without saying, it would be open to the insurance {\. company to plead and prove that it is not liable at all. 18. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that there can be more than one award particularly when a sum paid may have to be adjusted from the final award. Keeping in view the provisions of Section ' 168. of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an B award for enforcing the right under Section 140 of the Act is also required to be passed under Section 168 only after the parties concerned have filed their pleadings and have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A Claims Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that the conditions precedent specified in Section C 140 of the Act have been substantiated, which is the basis for 1 making an award. 19. Furthe1more, evidently, the amount directed to be paid even in tenns of Chapter-X of the Act must as of necessity, in the event D of non-compliance of directions has to be recovered in terms of Section 174 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act ' which takes care of such a situation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that even when objections are raised by the insurance company in regard to its liability, the Tribunal is required to render a decision upon the issue, which would attain finality and, thus, E the S8!11e would be an award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act." 8. So far as the question ofliability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental F Insurance Company Ltd v. Brij Mohan and Ors., (2007) 7 SCALE 753 and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to consider the ma~ers afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Smt. Yalrwwa 's case (supra) and Brij Mohan 's case (supra). G 9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to -costs. K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.