Skip to content


Chatradhari Upadhaya and anr. Vs. Babu Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 6 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Ori123; 51(1981)CLT152
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110A
AppellantChatradhari Upadhaya and anr.
RespondentBabu Singh and anr.
Appellant AdvocateY. Ahmed and ;Md. Irshad, Advs.
Respondent AdvocatePuranjan Roy, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredBessarlal Laxmi Chand Chirawala v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Greater Bombay
Excerpt:
.....to pay compensation to the claimant was never intended to defeat the claims filed under the act. 5. in paragraph 14 of the written statement filed by the insurance company, it has been clearly stated that gurudev singh had taken the vehicle on hire from babu singh and babu singh was the registered owner and the insurer. in this case gurudev singh has not been made a party but it has been clearly stated by the insurer that gurudev singh would be liable to pay compensation......cuttack as a helper in respect of truck oru 7643, this truck belongs to opposite party no. 1 babu singh. he had hired to gurudev singh. due to i'ash and negligent driving of this truck by the driver, it went out of the road and fell into a ditch after crossing dehuria bridge on the national highway between cuttack and paradeep. as a result of such accident, the deceased was badly injured and died at the spot.3. the employer of the deceased gurudev singh has not been made a party to this proceeding and no steps were taken to notice him. babu singh and the insurer were made parties to the proceeding.the learned tribunal has dismissed the petition as gurudev singh who is said to have taken the vehicle on hire from the registered owner babu singh has not been made a party and as it is.....
Judgment:

N.K. Das, J.

1. The claimants in a proceeding under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are in appeal against the order of the Tribunal dismissing their claim petition for not adding one Gurudev Singh as Opposite Party in the claim case.

2. It is alleged that the deceased was working under one Gurudev Singh, Kalings Transport, Mangalabag, Cuttack as a helper in respect of truck ORU 7643, This truck belongs to Opposite Party No. 1 Babu Singh. He had hired to Gurudev Singh. Due to I'ash and negligent driving of this truck by the driver, it went out of the road and fell into a ditch after crossing Dehuria bridge on the National Highway between Cuttack and Paradeep. As a result of such accident, the deceased was badly injured and died at the spot.

3. The employer of the deceased Gurudev Singh has not been made a party to this proceeding and no steps were taken to notice him. Babu Singh and the insurer were made parties to the proceeding.

The learned Tribunal has dismissed the petition as Gurudev Singh who is said to have taken the vehicle on hire from the registered owner Babu Singh has not been made a party and as it is stated the deceased was working under Gurudev Singh.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that it was the duty of the Tribunal to find out all the parties who may be liable to pay the compensation. Formal defect of failure to mention appropriate names of the parties who are liable to pay compensation to the claimant was never intended to defeat the claims filed under the Act. Reliance has been placed on Bessarlal Laxmi Chand Chirawala v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Greater Bombay, 1970 Ace CJ 334 : (AIR 1970 Bom 337). A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the form prescribed for filing compensation application does not require that the claimant should include in the application any party as defendant. Neither the Motor Vehicles Act nor the Rules framed thereunder require the claimant to mention any parties as the opposite parties in the title of the application. On the other hand, all the relevant facts in this connection are left to be ascertained by the Claims Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has been entrusted with the duty of finding out all the parties who may be liable to pay compensation. Formal defect of failure to mention appropriate names of the parties who are liable to pay compensation to the claimant was never intended to defeat the claims filed under the Act.

5. In paragraph 14 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it has been clearly stated that Gurudev Singh had taken the vehicle on hire from Babu Singh and Babu Singh was the registered owner and the insurer. In this case Gurudev Singh has not been made a party but it has been clearly stated by the insurer that Gurudev Singh would be liable to pay compensation. It is for the Tribunal to see, who is actually liable to pay the compensation and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court cited above, it is the duty of the Tribunal to find out the liability of a person to pay compensation. That will also lead to a question, to what extent the insurer is also liable. All these facts have not been considered by the Tribunal and, as such, it is necessary that the Tribunal will reconsider the matter in the light of the observations stated above.

6. In the result, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal to dispose it according to law keeping in view the observations made above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //