HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
( BEFORE VALMIKI MENEZES J.)
Writ Petition No. 692/2023
SHRI. MOHANDAS VINAYAK NAIK AND ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DATTARAJ TUKARAM GAUDE AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 169 and Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 – The provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC, which empowers a Civil Court to implead parties or drop parties to the proceedings are not made applicable to the procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal under the said Rules.
The Tribunal is not vested with powers to decide the pleas raised by different parties individually, without evidence being recorded and without an inquiry being held into the rival contentions. The Tribunal would be obliged to take on record, pleadings of all parties to the Claim Petition, and depending on the defences taken by each of the parties, would be required to frame issues and direct the parties to lead evidence on their rival claims/defences. It is only after completion of the inquiry, and after all evidence is recorded, which includes in the present case, tendering of the contract of insurance produced by each of the Insurance companies, that the Tribunal could decide whether an Insurer is liable to pay compensation, under the contract – Claim Petitions and pleas of parties seeking deletion from such proceedings, are required to be decided on scrutiny of the evidence to be led by the parties. (Para 15)
FACTS
This Petition impugns order dated 10.08.2023, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Margao (MACT) in Claim Petition No.88/2022 filed by the Petitioners who are the original claimants, whilst allowing an Application dated 09.03.2023, made by the Insurance Company for dropping/deleting itself as Respondent No.2 in the Claims Petition. The Insurance Company contended that on the date of the accident, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was for own damage and not for third party liability and therefore it was not liable and had been wrongly impleaded – Tribunal passed an order deleting the Insurance Company as a party Respondent No.2 from the Petition, the said order is Impugned herein.
HELD
In the Claim Petition before the MACT, the Tribunal, at the relevant time, had not even completed receiving all the pleadings of the parties and Respondent No. 5, who was also an Insurance Company, which has insured the vehicle of the driver, was yet to file its written statement. The stages of framing issues and recording of evidence were far from being achieved when the impugned order was passed. The course adopted by the Tribunal is therefore totally contrary to the provisions of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act and contrary to the provisions of the Rules, as the entire scheme of the Act and Rules that apply to the procedure required to be followed by Claims Tribunal have been given a go by. The provisions referred to above, mandate that the Tribunal complete pleadings of the parties, frame issues and record evidence of the parties and it is only thereafter, it can decide the liability of each of the Respondents to the claim, by passing an Award. As held in Bimlesh (supra), this cannot be done piece meal. The impugned order dated 10.08.2023 is therefore quashed and set aside for the aforementioned reasons. (para 18)
CASES CITED
1) Bimlesh and Others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited [(2010) 8 SCC 591]
2) Om Prakash Jaiswal & Ors V/s Manish Kumar & Ors, [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5506]
To download judgment click link:-