National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Tahir & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4390 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2271 of 2003
 

 
Appellant :- National Insurance Co Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Tahir & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Nigmendra Shukla,N.K.Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

This appeal has been filed by the insurer of a Matador motor vehicle bearing registration no. DID-1623. It was involved in an accident on 7.6.1996 with another vehicle bearing registration no. UHS-8245 insured by another insurer M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent no.3).

The aforesaid accident gave rise to the claim petition by the injured Tahir. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident took place on 07.06.1996 at 12:30 a.m. near village Ghosipura, Muzaffarnagar-Meerut road due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UHS - 8245?

2. Whether the driver of vehicle no. DID - 1623 is liable for contributory negligence? If so, its effect?

3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties

4. To what amount of compensation, if any the claimant is entitled and from whom?"

On issue nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal recorded its finding as under:-

"Issue no.1

In order to prove the aforesaid version the petitioner has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has supported the petition's version. This witness has been put to cross examined at length but nothing has come out against him. Apart it the petitioner has also filed certified copy of F.I.R., certified copy of the charge-sheet, certified copy of site-plan, Discharge-Card from L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut, two in number, O.P.D. of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, O.P.D. of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, New Delhi, still curiously enough the O.Ps. have not produced any evidence against it. Consequently, in my opinion, the petitioner has been able to prove this issue and this issue is decided accordingly.

Issue no.2

The burden to prove this issue was on the opposite parties, but the O.Ps. have neither adduced any oral evidence not have advanced any argument on this point. Hence this issue is decided as not pressed."

The Tribunal thus found that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. UHS-8245. It also found there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured by the present appellant, being Matador bearing registration no. DID-1623.

Having recorded such finding, the Tribunal in the concluding part of the award made the following observation:-

"Lastly, from the perusal of the file I find that in this case two vehicles are involved, and one is insured with M/s United Insurance Company and the other vehicle is insured with M/s National Insurance Company and the factum of accident and insurance have not been disputed by the Insurance companies. Hence, in my opinion, both the Insurance companies will be liable to pay fifty-fifty percent the amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,03,220/- each."

Accordingly, the Tribunal held the appellant as also the United India Insurance Company Ltd. equally liable to compensate the claimant Tahir.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal and operative portion of the award is in conflict with the finding recorded by issue nos. 1 and 2.

According to him, once the Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the accident had been caused solely due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the vehicle insured by M/s United India Insurance Company, there remained no justification to fix any liability on the present appellant.

Learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company on the other hand submits that it being a case of head on collision, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is not wrong.

Having considered the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, once the Tribunal had framed the issue with regard to the cause of accident and contributory negligence and had further recorded specific findings exonerating the driver of the vehicle insured by the present appellant, it was not open, to any extent, for the Tribunal to fix liability of compensation on the present appellant.

The award is self contradicted. The conclusion is contrary to the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In any claim proceedings the Tribunal has to first frame issues, decide them on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record. In doing so, the Tribunal gives reasons to record its conclusions on the issues so framed. These conclusions are the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Once such findings are recorded, the Tribunal proceeds to make the ultimate award as to liability, if any, of the parties.

For the ultimate liability so fixed to be valid, it must be consistent with the findings recorded and the findings recorded must in turn be consistent with the reasoning given by the Tribunal. The reasoning in its turn must be pertinent to the issue being decided.

The chain between the issues being decided and the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Tribunal must be unbroken and must appear to move in a synchronous manner in a single direction. Any inconsistency or aberration noticed at one stage would have to be resolved with reference to the previous. Like an object and its reflection, in case of distortion in the image, one will have to look at the object to judge if there is any distortion in the image, so in such a case, when challenge is raised as to what arises, one will have to look at that from which it arises, that is being questioned.

Thus, if the ultimate conclusion conflicts with the finding, the finding would be seen first and may often prevail. In case of conflict between the conclusion would have to be seen first and if possible made consistent with the finding. Similarly, if a finding conflicts with the reasoning, the reasoning must be seen first and should prevail, if possible, and if the reasoning conflicts with the issue i.e. it appears irrelevant to the issue, the issue may have to be decided again.

The present is a simple case of the ultimate conclusion being in conflict with the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal. It has also been stated at the bar that the United India Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award impugned in the present appeal. Thus, the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. UHS-8245 insured by M/s United India Insurance Company-respondent no.3 herein, and not due to any fault of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant, the entire liability of compensation ought to have fixed on M/s United India Insurance Company alone.

Thus the award is modified to the extent that the entire liability of compensation as determined by the Tribunal shall be discharged by M/s United India Insurance Company-respondent no.3 herein.

In view of the fact that the appellant has already deposited money equal to liability fixed by the Tribunal, that amount may be released in entirety to the claimant.

The respondent no.3 shall deposit an amount equal to the amount deposited by the present appellant in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court within a period of two weeks from today, which shall be paid out to the appellant by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.

The security furnished by the claimant respondents to for release of the amount under interim order of this Court stands discharged.

The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.9.2017

Mini