Gauhati High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Arati [email protected] And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010080272020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1065/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
ARATI [email protected] and 2 ORS
W/O LT. BORJU SIK, R/O NAMSANG, T.E., P.O. JOYPUR, P.S.JOYPUR, DIST.
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
2:THE MANAGER
M/S DHANSIRI TEA INDUSTRIES LTD.
NAMSANG TEA ESTATE
P.O.- JEYPUR
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-06/F-9187-709 TRUCK
3:MONJOY TANTI
S/O- SRI AMOR TANTI
NAMSANG TEA ESTATE
P.O.- JEYPUR
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-06/F-9187-709 TRUC
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P CHOUDHURY
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
23.04.2021
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Borchetia, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1.
2. The applicant was the appellant and the opposite party no. 1 was the respondent no. 1
in the connected appeal, MACApp. 55/2014. The said appeal, MACApp. 55/2014 was disposed
of by a Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2019.
3. By this application, the applicant-appellant has sought for correction of errors which
had been inadvertently crept in in paragraph no. 36 of the said Judgment and Order dated
24.05.2019. For ready reference, paragraph no. 36 of the said Judgment and Order dated
24.05.2019 is extracted hereunder :-
"36. In view of the aforesaid position of law, I am of the considered view that the direction of
pay and recover made in Baljit Kaur, Saju P. Paul and Manuara Khatun by the Apex Court was
in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India and either in the peculiar facts of the case or in view of uncertainty on the point of view
of law till then, as have been noted therein, to do complete justice between the parties. Since
such a power is not available to a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, as amended, it cannot go against the law settled to the effect that in case of a gratuitous
passenger carried in a goods vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy an award
and the owner is the person who shall be liable to pay the compensation and as such, any
direction to the insurance company to satisfy the award first and to recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle is incongruous. Therefore, the decision of the Claims Tribunal to follow a
direction issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the present case is not accordance with law. In the
light of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of gratuitous passenger carried in a
goods vehicle and there being an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Claims Tribunal, I am
of the considered opinion that the direction of the Claims Tribunal to the insurance company
to pay the compensation awarded first to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from
the owner later on is not sustainable and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, that
part of the direction is set aside. Consequently, the owner-insurer is liable to satisfy the award
and to pay the compensation to the respondent-claimant by depositing the awarded amount
before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 (three) months from today. In the event of non-
payment by the owner-insurer, it is for the respondent-claimant to take up appropriate
Page No.# 3/3
proceeding before the Claims Tribunal to recover the compensation from the owner-insurer.
The appellant-insurer shall be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit made in connection
with the instant appeal. To the extent above, this appeal stands allowed."
4. The corrections that have been sought for by this application are in respect of the
words 'the owner-insurer' at three places occurring in the above paragraph no. 36. According
to the applicant-appellant, it should have been 'the owner-insured' instead of 'the owner-
insurer' in those three places.
5. A perusal of the contents of paragraph no. 36 itself goes to show that the errors at
those three places evidently were typographical errors which had been inadvertently crept in
in the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2019. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is
allowed by observing that the words 'the owner-insurer' appearing at three places in
paragraph no. 36 of the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2019 shall be read as 'the owner-
insured' for all intents and purposes to give effect to the Judgment and Order dated
24.05.2019. This order shall be read as part and parcel of the Judgment and Order dated
24.05.2019.
6. With the above observations made, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
