LexMANUARA KHATUN & ORS. versus RAJESH KR. SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] l S.C.R. 789 MANUARA KHATUN & ORS. v. RAJESH KR. SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3047of2017) FEBRUARY 21, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor accident - Compensation - Victim travelling as gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver - Liability of Insurance Company of the offending vehicle - Held: Claimants are entitled for an order against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said amount from the insured, owner of the ·offending vehicle in the same proceedings. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that the law laid down in *Saju P. Paul's Case cannot be applied to the facts of th.e case at hand. Firstly, marked similarity is found .in the facts of this case and the one involved in *Saju P. Paul's Case. Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in *Saju P. Paul's Case, it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench as would be clear from the *Saju P. Paul's case [Para 20] [796-C-E] 1.2 There is no good ground to take a different view than t.he one consistently being taken by this Court in all previous decisions, in this regard. [Para 21] [796-F] 1.3 The direction to the Insurance co·mpany-respondent No. 3, they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) 789 A B c D E F G H 790 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 7] 1 S.C.R. and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in *Saju P. Paul's case. [Para 22] [796-G] 1.4 The impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter, respondent No. 3 would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner (insured) of the offending Vehicle-respondent No.1 in these very proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. [Para 23] [797-A-B] Manage1; National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 41 : [2013] 2 SCR 1 - relied on. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224 : [2004] 2 SCR 365; Bhagyalakshmi & Ors. v. United Insurance Company Ltd & Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 148 : [2009] 7 SCR 1031; National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 1 : [2004] 1 SCR 274; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 587; National flisurance Co. Ltd. v. Kausha!aya Devi & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 246 : [2008] 8 SCR 500; National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Roshan Lal [Order dated 19.1.2007 in SLP (C) No. 5699 of 2006]; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni & Anr. (2009) 8 sec 785 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2004] 2 SCR 365 referred to Para 11 [2009] 7 SCR 1031 referred to Para 11 [2004] 1 SCR 274 referred to Para 15 [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 15 [2008] 8 SCR 500 referred to Para 15 (2009) 8 sec 785 referred to Para 15 [2013] 2 SCR 1 relied on Paras 20, 22 MANUARA KHATUN & ORS. v. RAJESH KR. SINGH & ORS. 791 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3047 A of20I 7. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2012 of the High Court at Gauhati in MAC Appeal No. 7 of 2009 WITH C. A. No. 3065 of20l 7. M. L. Lahofy, Paban K. Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Advs. for the Appellant. Ravi Bakshi, Nitin Kumar Thakur, S. L. Gupta, Kuldeep Singh Tomar, Varinder Kumar Shanna, R. K. Gupta, D. P. Singh Yadav, B. S. Gautam, Ms. Shalu Shanna, Ailvs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. l. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 22.06.20I2 passed by the High Court ofGauhati at Guwahati in MACA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.