2014(1) ALL MR 187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
Rekhatai Wd/O. Deepak Chavhan & Ors. Vs. Onkar S/O. Kisanrao Thakare & Anr.
First Appeal No. 911 of 2012
22nd August, 2013
Petitioner Counsel: Shri P.R. AGRAWAL
Respondent Counsel: Shri N.R.SABOO
Motor Vehicles Act (1988), S.166 - Just and reasonable compensation - Claimants seeking compensation of Rs.5 lacs - However, award passed only to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- on finding that deceased was responsible for accident - Permission sought by petitioner to produce before Tribunal recent circular issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) regarding liability of insurance companies as also evidence of competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee - Accordingly, award of Tribunal set aside and matter remitted with direction that claimants be given opportunity to lead additional evidence. 2013 ALL SCR 104 Rel.on (Para 3)
Yashpal Luthra and another Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another, III (2010) ACC 130 [Para 2]
National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, 2013 ALL SCR 104 =2013 ACJ 199 [Para 2,3]
JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05/05/2012 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Amravati in Claim Petition No.235 of 2006 whereby learned Advocate made a grievance that the Tribunal without examination of insurer's liability to compensate the claimants on the basis of insurance policy as also without examining the material facts in which claimants had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that accident occurred on 16/05/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the TVS motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-27/ W-5443 and Dipak Chavhan (victim) died as a result of accidental injuries. However, according to the Tribunal, there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellants claimants have strong objection to the observations made by the Tribunal without examination of evidence as on 05/05/2012 the claim was decided. It is also a grievance of the learned Advocate for appellants that Tribunal failed to notice the ruling in Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another, reported in III (2010) ACC 130, in which United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was party and referring the directions issued from authorities concerned, an affidavit was filed before Delhi High Court and a circular from Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) whereby regarding liability to third parties directions were issued, which are binding on the Insurance Companies to pay just and reasonable compensation to the claimants as may be arrived at by the Tribunal. It is also brought to my notice that ruling in Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another, reported in III (2010) ACC 130, was also referred to by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 199 : [2013 ALL SCR 104]. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal was bound to examine evidence of the nature of insurance policy and as such insurer was liable if comprehensive or package policy was entered into between insured and insurer. It is also pointed out that there are no fetters on the Tribunal irrespective of any claim for the amount of compensation to award just, reasonable and fair compensation after examining the evidence led before the Tribunal. According to the learned Advocate, the sum of Rs.75,000/- only was awarded as conclusion was unsupported by evidence led. Hence, he prayed for opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal so as to bring to the notice of the Tribunal recent circulars issued by IRDA to insurance companies including the respondentInsurance Company as also evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) referred to by Delhi High Court.
3. Thus, considering the submissions as also rulings cited before me, particularly in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 199 : [2013 ALL SCR 104], it would be appropriate if impugned judgment and award is set aside and the proceedings is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to give opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead additional evidence and then to decide the claim in accordance with law and on its own merits.
4. Hence, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The proceedings is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal shall gave opportunity of hearing and to lead additional evidence to the rival parties and then to decide the claim application on its own merits. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30/09/2013. Record and proceedings be sent back. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.