LexBIMLESH & ORS. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 605 BIMLESH & ORS. 1~ v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2164 of 2004) AUGUST 3, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A, 166, 168 and 169 - Motor accident - Claim for compensation u/s. 163-A - For A B the death of owner of the vehicle - Maintainability of the C petition questioned - Tribunal holding that petition was maintainable - High Court holding the same as not maintainable - On appeal, held: The claims tribunal in a claim petition, is required to decide all the issues in one go and not in piecemeal - The question of maintainability is o connected with the liability of the Insurance Company - Therefore, the matter is sent back to claims tribunal to decide all the issues together. Owner of the insured vehicle died in a road accident while he was driving the vehicle. His dependants filed E petition u/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. The Insurance Company questioned the maintainability of the petition stating that it was liable to compensation only for third party and not to the owner. The tribunal held that the petition was maintainable. High F Court, in revision, held that it was not maintainable. In the instant appeal, appellants contended that additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the driver of the vehicle and in the policy, persons or classes G of persons entitled to drive included the insured and thus tt)e insurance company was liable. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 605 H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 The whole object of summary procedure required to be followed by the Claims Tribunal, is to ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. The inquiry u/s. 168 and the summary procedure do not contemplate the B controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application. (Para 5] (608-D-F] 1.2 The objection raised by the Insurance Company C about maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is dependent on determination of the effect of the additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other D terms of the policy including terms of the policy. Since all the issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of the evidence that may be led in by the parties and not in piecemeal, it is not proper to consider the rival E contentions on merits at this stage. The matter is sent back to the Claims Tribunal. [Para 5] [608-F-H] F G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2164 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2002 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2001. B.K. Satija for the Appellants. Manish Singhvi, P.V. Yogeswaran, Jaswant Perraya for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by / BIMLESH & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. 607 LTD. · ·· , · R:M. LODHA, J. 1. The claimants are in appeal by special A leave aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 1, 2002 of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh. The High Court by the said order, set aside the order dated August 7, 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') and held that B claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act, 1988') was not maintainable against the respondent-New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short, 'the Insurance Company'). · 2. Hiri Bhagwan was the registered owner of a Jeep C bearing No. HR-26-G-0179 which was being used as a Maxicab. The said vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for the period from August 30, 1999 to August 29, 2000. He himself used to drive that vehicle. An accident occurred on August 15, 2000; Siri Bhagwan while driving the D said vehicle on Rewari-Pataudi Road, to save a dog, hit a tree ·and died. His wife and children-the appellants herein filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal against the Insurance Company claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Insurance E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.