(Dipak Misra, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
Krantibai and Ors. ______________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Dinesh Yadav & Ors. ___________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 24070 of 2017 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 34231 of 2015], decided on December 22, 2017
With
Civil Appeal No. 24075 of 2017 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 37388 (CC No. 20403 of 2015)]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
C.A. No. 24070/2017 @ SLP(C) No. 34231/2015
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the Insurer.
3. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 235/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dislodged the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh whereby the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the Insurer after taking note of the facts into consideration.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. He has criticised the opinion expressed by the High Court in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment which reads thus:
“14. In my opinion, the accident had occurred and the motor bike was dashed with the stationary police vehicle. In such circumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer. There is no liability of the Insurance Company. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is absolved from his liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Impugned order is modified up to this extent.”
5. The submission of Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the Insurer, per contra, is that it is the jeep which is responsible for the accident. We are not inclined to accept the said submission.
6. In our considered opinion, the accident occurred because of negligent and rash driving of the driver of tractor and the tribunal was correct in its approach in fastening the liability on the Insurer.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore that of the tribunal with the modification that the amount awarded by the tribunal shall be deposited before the tribunal within twelve weeks hence, which shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants in accordance with the law laid down in the case of General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.), (1994) 2 SCC 176, on proper identification, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal.
C.A. No. 24075/2017 @ SLP(C) No. 37388/2017 (CC No. 20403/2015)
8. Delay condoned.
9. Leave granted.
10. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the Insurer.
11. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 235/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dislodged the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh whereby the tribunal had fastened the liability on the Insurer after taking note of the facts into consideration.
12. It is submitted by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. He has criticised the opinion taken by the High Court in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment which reads thus:
“14. In my opinion, the accident had occurred and the motor bike was dashed with the stationary police vehicle. In such circumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer. There is no liability of the Insurance Company. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is absolved from his liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Impugned order is modified up to this extent.”
13. The submission of Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the Insurer, per contra, is that it is the owner of jeep which is responsible for the accident. We are not inclined to accept the said submission.
14. In our considered opinion, the accident occurred because of negligent and rash driving of the tractor and the tribunal was correct in its approach in fastening the liability on the Insurer.
15. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore that of the tribunal with the modification that the amount awarded by the tribunal shall be deposited before the tribunal within twelve weeks hence, which shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants in accordance with the law laid down in the case of General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.), (1994) 2 SCC 176, on proper identification, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34231/2015
Krantibai and Ors _________________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Dinesh Yadav ____________________________________ Respondent
WITH S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 20403/2015 (IV-A)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2015)
Date : 22-12-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Sasmita Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Gol, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
C.A. No. 24070/2017 @ SLP(C) No. 34231/2015
16. Leave granted.
17. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
C.A. No. 24075/2017 @ SLP(C) No. 37388 (CC No. 20403/2015)
18. Delay condoned.
19. Leave granted.
20. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
