LexMACHINDRANATH KERNATH KASAR versus D.S. MYLARAPPA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' ..,- [2008] 7 S.C.R. 83 MACHINDRANATH KERNATH KASAR v. D.S. MYLARAPPA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2008) APRIL 29, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : I A B s. 166 - Claim petitions by passengers of bus and its driver - Injured in a collision 1between a bus and a truck - c Tribunal holding that bus driver, and not the truck driver, was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner - Claim petitions of passengers allowed and that of driver rejected - High Court rejecting claim petition of bus driver observing that he having not questioned finding of tribunal in passengers' 0 petitions regarding his negligence and the findings having J become final, he was bound thereby - Held: Claimant-bus driver was fully aware of his legal liability ~ He was also prosecuted in criminal court in that regard - He deposed in claim petitions filed by injured passengers - He was aware that his plea of not being negligent was negatived - He, E therefore, was party to the proceedings initiated by passengers and could have preferred an appeal thereagainst - Tribunal and High Court rightly rejected his claim - 'Party' - 'Necessary party' - 'Aggrived person' - Connotation of - Practice and Procedure - Words & Phrases. F In a motor accident stated to have occurred on a collision between a bus belonging to the State Road Transport Corporation and a truck, several passengers traveling in the bus and its driver (the appellant) were injured. The passengers as also the appellant filed a claim G petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant was also prosecuted in a criminal case for rash and negligent driving. However, that case ended in acquittal. Before the Tribunal the Corporation denied and 83 H 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A disputed the case of the passengers that the appellant was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant also examined himself in the claim petitions filed by the passengers aind supported the case of the Corporation. The Tribunal heard both the sets of cases 8 together and allowed the! claim petitions of the passengers holding that the appellant was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The Corporation did not challenge the awards given in favour of the passengers .and the same attained finality. Rejecting the claim petition of the appellant the c Tribunal held that it was the appellant, and not the truck driver, who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In the appeal filed by the ;~ppellant the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal held that as the appellant did not question correctness of the award of the Tribunal in the 0 passengers' cases, althiough a party aggrieved, he was bound thereby as regards the finding of negligence. In the instant appeal filed by the bus driver, it was contended for the appeillant, inter alia, that the awards passed by the Tribunal in the cases of the passengers E were not binding on the appellant; and that the High Court erred in holding that although the appellant was not a party in the proceedings, he was an aggrieved person. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HEI O: 1.1Section168 of the MotorVehiclesAct,1988 mandaft=l? the Tribunal to specify the amount which shall be paid by the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by both or any of them. As it is imperative on the part of the Tribunal to specify the amount payable, G inter alia by the driver of the vehicle, a fortiori he should ·be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. In appropriate cases, liability of the driv1er may be primary. He may not, however, be a necessaPJ party in the sense that in his absence, the entire proceE!ding shall not be vitiated as the owner of the vehicle was a party in his capacity as a joint H ' ' MACHINDRANATH KERNATH KASAR v. D.S. 85 MYLARAPPA & ORS. tort teaser. [para 18 and 33 ] [98-B, C] A Sitaram Motilal Kalal Vs. Santanuprasad Jaishanker Bhatt AIR 1966 SC 1697; and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and Another (2003) 8 SCC 731 - relied on. . . B ..,. Patel Roadways and Another Vs. Manish Chhotalal Thakkar and Others ILR 2000 Kar. 3286; Minu B. Mehta and Another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Another AIR 1977 SC 1248; and New India Assurance Co. Vs Munni Devi 1993 ACJ 1066 (M.P.) and Madhya Pradesh State Road c Transport Corporation Vs.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.