1 fa403.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.403/2008
1. Sau. Shashiprabha H. Agrawal,
aged about Yrs., Occu.
R/o Chandur Railway,
Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati.
2. Ramdas S/o Haribhau Raut,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Driver,
R/o Chandur Railway,
Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati. ig ..Appellants.
..Vs..
Saraswatabai Amarsing Patil,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Labour,
R/o Sonegaon, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 22.9.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT C.A.F. NO.2281/2016 Heard Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants and Shri C.A.
Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent.
Considering the nature of controversy, the prayer for grant of early hearing is granted. The civil application is allowed.
2. In the claim petition filed by the respondent - claimant seeking ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:56:06 ::: 2 fa403.08 compensation for the death of her husband in the accident, an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed which is allowed by the impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is challenged by the appellants on the ground that the Insurance Company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured is necessary party to the claim petition and was not impleaded.
The appellants relied on the provisions of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to support the contention. The judgment given in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Aurangabad V/s. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others reported in 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 177 is also relied upon on behalf of the appellants.
The learned Advocate for the claimant has supported the impugned order.
3. After hearing, the following point arises for consideration:
Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is proper ?
4. The challenge raised on behalf of the appellants relying on the provisions of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is misconceived. The provisions of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deal with the procedural aspect and require that the Tribunal should ensure that notice is given to the owner and insurer involved in the accident and the owner and insurer should be called upon to appear not later than 15 days from the date of issuance of notice.
The object of this Rule is to facilitate speedy disposal of the claim petition and the notice period is laid down as 15 days. The above Rule does not require the claimant to implead the insurance company and the Rule cannot be read to mean that the claim of the claimant cannot be considered by the Tribunal if the insurance company ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:56:06 ::: 3 fa403.08 is not impleaded.
In my view, the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and does not require any interference.
The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to be paid by the appellant No.1 (owner of the vehicle) to the respondent (claimant).
The amount of costs shall be paid and receipt shall be produced on record of the Tribunal within one month, failing which the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders against the present appellant No.1.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) deposited by the appellants before this Court, alongwith interest, should be given to the claimant.
The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the interest being chargeable from 5th February, 2008 (from the date of the impugned order) till the amount is paid to the claimant.
This amount shall be paid by the appellants to the claimant and receipt shall be produced on record of the Tribunal within one month, failing which the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders against the appellants considering it to be non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.
As the claim petition is of 2007, the Tribunal is directed to dispose the claim petition within six months.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:56:06 ::: 4 fa403.08
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. Uploaded On : 3.10.2016.
Personal Assistant.
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:56:06 :::