UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHANDI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals involve common question of law about maintainability of the appeals filed by the insurance company under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without complying with the provisions of section 170 of the same Act they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The M.A.C. Appeal No. 2 of 2004 filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed against the order dated 6.2.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East and North, Gangtok in the M.A.C.T. Case No. 26 of 2003 granting a sum of Rs. 2,21,800 as compensation in favour of the claimant who is respondent No. 1 herein and the M.A.C. Appeal No. 3 of 2004 filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed against the order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the same Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East and North, Gangtok in M.A.C.T. Case No. 23 of 2003 granting a sum of Rs. 1,77,000 as compensation in favour of the claimant who is respondent No.1, herein.

(3.) The brief facts of the M.A.C. Appeal No. 2 of 2004 are that the deceased late Subhas Rai was employed by respondent No. 2 as driver of his vehicle bearing No. SK 04-3933. On 6.5.2002, the deceased who was on duty in the said vehicle sustained severe injuries on his head and spine in an accident that occurred at a place called Sawney Busty, East Sikkim when the vehicle was on its way from Rhenock to Gangtok and was being driven by its former driver one Dawa Bhutia. The deceased was immediately hospitalised for medical treatment following the accident. However, despite the medical treatment given to the deceased in hospitals at Kalimpong and Siliguri in West Bengal he succumbed to his injuries after 3 months. On his demise, the respondent No. 1 who is the father of the deceased filed claim of Rs. 7,48,800 as compensation before the M.A.C.T., East and North, Gangtok against the present appellant who is the insurer and one Tenzing Chopel Bhutia, son of late Thendup Dorjee Bhutia who is the owner of vehicle involved in the accident. The present appellant who was the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal filed written objection and denied any liability contending that there was neither any statutory liability nor contractual obligation cast upon them to pay any compensation to the respondent No. 1 or to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for payment of any compensation. It was also contended that the claim petition suffered from non-disclosure of cause of action and also for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The owner of the vehicle who was respondent No. 2 therein contested the claim without filing any written objection. He contended that as he had insured his vehicle with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. the appellant herein, the claim for compensation was not maintainable against him. Learned Tribunal on hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,21,800 to the claimant vide the impugned award dated 6.2.2004 directing the insurance company, the appellant herein, to make the payments.