IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.890 of 2010
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. M.G. Road, New Area,
Aurangabad (Bihar) represented through the Chief Regional Manager and
the constituted Attorney, Regional Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 4 th
Floor, Sone Bhawan, B.C. Patel Path, P.S. Sachivalaya, District - Patna.
............. O.P. No. 5
.............. Appellant
Versus
1. Bindeshwari Singh Son of Late Nanhku Singh
2. Deo Rajia Devi wife of Sri Bindehswari Singh
Both resident of village - Yakub Tola Dariyapur, P.S. - Rampur Chouram,
District - Arwal (Bihar) at present resident of New Area, Aurangabad, Bihar.
............... Claimants
.............. Respondent Ist Set
3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Pali Road, Dehri-on-
Sone, Rohtas (Bihar). ........... O.P. No. 1
4. Sri Vinod Tiwary son of Dewa Nand Tiwary, Resident of Old Police Line,
Arrah, P.S. - Arrah Town, District - Bhojpur, Bihar.
(Owner of the vehicle Bus No. BR-BP/0854). .......... O.P. No. 2
5. Sri Surya Bansh Ray Son of Sri Shivam Ray a resident of Village -
Majhauan, P.S. - Arrah Town, District - Bhojpur, Bihar.
(Driver of Bus No. BR-3P/0854). ........... O.P. No. 3
................ (O.P. No. 2 and 3)
.............. Respondents 2nd Set
6. Sri Dhananjay Kumar Son of Radha Kant Mehta, Resident of Village and
Post - Belkhara, P.S. Karpi, District - Jehanabad, Bihar.
(Owner of Vehicle Commander Jeep No. BR-2B/1194)
............... (O.P. 4)
............... Respondents 3rd Set.
-----------
3 05.08.2011 Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No. 3/Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against an Order dated 08.09.2010
passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II)-cum-
Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Claim Tribunal’) in M.V. Case No. 35 of 2010. By the said
2
Order the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has allowed a petition filed under
Section 140 of the M.V. Act for interim compensation filed by the
claimants.
Short fact of the case is that on 01.03.2007, a Commander
Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-2B/1194 being driven by one
Chhotu Kumar @ Doman dashed with a Bus bearing Registration No.
BR-3P/0854 near Dhanupra Village, P.S. – Arrah, District – Bhojpur
on N.H. 30. In the said accident besides driver of the Commander Jeep
others also died and several received serious injuries. In this case
besides other son of claimant namely Chhotu Kumar also died.
After the accident a case vide Arrah (Town) P.S. Case No.
41 of 2007 was registered on the fard-beyan of one Ajit Kumar and
after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the
Bus showing death of the driver of the Commander Jeep. It appears
that after the accident a claim petition was filed which was numbered
as M.V. 35 of 2010 and a petition under section 140 of the M.V. Act
was filed for interim compensation. After hearing the parties the
learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ by Order dated 08.09.2010 allowed the
petition for interim compensation and directed insurers of both the
offending vehicles i.e. the Commander Jeep as well as Bus to share
interim compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- equally. Accordingly,
the appellant (insurer of the Commander Jeep) was directed to pay Rs.
25,000/- as interim compensation to the claimants.
Sri Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for the
appellant while challenging the impugned Order submits that the
3
learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ was atleast required to conduct an enquiry
under Section 141 of the Motor Vehicle Act and only thereafter the
learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ was required to pass an Order. He submits
that it is true that accident had occurred but in the accident there was
no fault on the part of the driver of the Commander Jeep. It was
submitted that it was completely rash and negligent act of the driver of
the offending Bus and due to that reason Police after investigation
submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending Bus. It was
submitted that it was not a case of contributory liability and as such
only Respondent No. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was
liable to be directed to pay even the interim compensation amount. In
support of his argument for conducting an enquiry learned counsel for
the appellant has relied on two un-reported Orders/Judgments passed
by a Single Bench of this Court. First of all learned counsel for the
appellant has referred to an Order dated 28.04.2010 passed in
Miscellaneous Appeal i.e. M.A. No. 64 of 2007 (National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs Laxminia Kuer & Ors.). Secondly he has referred to
a Judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 101 of 2005 (Branch Manager, Branch Office, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kiran Devi & Ors.) dated 23 rd September,
2010. On the strength of aforesaid two decisions of this Court it was
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present appeal
may be allowed.
Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.
3, has opposed the prayer of the appellant. It was submitted by Sri
4
Singh that it is not in dispute that in the accident both the vehicles i.e.
the Commander Jeep and Bus were involved and in the said accident
death of the driver of the Commander Jeep had occurred in relation to
which the claim petition was filed vide M.V. Case No. 35 of 2010. It
was submitted that since the driver of the Commander Jeep died in the
accident there was no reason for the Investigating Agency to forward
him as charge sheeted accused and as such the driver of the
Commander Jeep was not made accused while submitting charge
sheet by the Police.
It was argued that in a case of head on collision prima
facie it can be considered that it was a case of contributory liability
and as such the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has rightly directed insurers
of both the vehicles to share equally the amount of interim
compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at the
admission stage itself without even issuance of notice to all the
Respondents. The appeal was heard with the consent of the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as Respondent No. 3.
So far decision in Laxminia Kuer’s Case (Supra) is
concerned, in that case it was pleaded that tractor in question was
insured for only agriculture purpose but while it was being used for
commercial purpose accident had taken place. Accordingly the Court
is of the opinion that Order in case of Laxminia Kuer’s Case (Supra)
was passed in different situation. Similarly in Kiran Devi’s Case
(Supra), the Insurance Company had taken specific plea that death in
5
the accident had occurred by a vehicle which was not insured by the
Insurance Company and as such the Court is of the opinion that cases
on which heavy reliance has been made by learned counsel for the
appellant has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
Moreover, while hearing a petition under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act it is not required for the Court to ask the
claimant to lead evidence and establish the case specifically which is
categorically mentioned in Section 140(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
At the time of hearing a petition under Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicle Act the only requirement is prima facie satisfaction of the
Court on the basis of materials available on record.
In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above
the Court is of the opinion that the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has
committed no error and Order impugned does not require any
interference.
The appeal stands rejected.
Let the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of
appeal be remitted back to the court below for its payment to the
claimants.
The appeal stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Praful