Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Devi And Others

Delhi High Court

Feb 8, 1991

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion by C.L. Chaudhry, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 8.12.1971, Yad Ram was killed in a road accident when a truck (No. DLG 1283) allegedly came on the wrong side of the central median and collided with his motorcycle (No. DLX 2920). The fatal injuries caused death within three quarters of an hour. His mother, Kamla Devi, a widow, filed a compensation claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 50,000. She alleged rash and negligent driving by the truck's driver (respondent No. 1, Munshi Ram). The respondents initially included Hamam (Harnam) Singh as owner (respondent No. 2) and an insurance company as respondent No. 3; subsequently Jaswant Singh was added as respondent No. 2, and later Guru Nanak Stone Mills was added as respondent No. 3 when records showed it to be the owner. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was later impleaded as respondent No. 4 (insurer).

Several issues were framed at different stages (initial issues on 10.7.1974; additional issues on 7.9.1979; further additional issues on 1.7.1980) covering negligence, legal representative status, limitation/condonation of delay in impleading respondents, ownership, and insurer's liability. After trial and evidence, the Tribunal, by judgment dated 14.7.1988, found the driver negligent and the deceased not at fault; it held that Guru Nanak Stone Mills was the owner and that the petition against respondents 3 and 4 was within time or that delay was properly condoned. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 32,400 jointly and severally from respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 4) appealed to the Court challenging the Tribunal's findings (principally the condonation of delay in impleading the owner and insurer). The appeal was heard, and Kamla Devi filed cross-objections claiming a higher award (Rs. 50,000) and interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in impleading respondent Nos. 3 (owner) and 4 (insurer) and thereby in permitting the claim to proceed despite the lapse of the statutory period under section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to increase the compensation to Rs. 50,000 and in refusing interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing (issues raised in the claimant's cross-objections)?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) / Counsel Mr. Sabharwal

Contended the claimant had prosecuted the case "in a most callous manner" and exhibited gross negligence in failing to implead respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within the statutory period.
Argued there were no sufficient grounds to condone an inordinate delay (about eight years) in impleading the owner and insurer, and that the Tribunal committed a legal error in condoning that delay.

Counsel for Respondent No. 1

Argued the claimant was an illiterate widow and should not be punished for the lapses of her counsel; condoning delay would avoid a travesty of justice.

Claimant (Kamla Devi) — Cross-objections

Contended the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation (claim originally sought) and that the deceased's income should have been taken as Rs. 400 per month instead of Rs. 300.
Claimed entitlement to interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Tribunal's exercise of discretion under section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits the Claims Tribunal to entertain an application after the statutory six-month period if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.

Key points in the Court's step-by-step reasoning:

The Tribunal had found, after considering the record, that the claimant came to know the real owner (Guru Nanak Stone Mills) only when Transport Authority records were produced during the trial and that Jaswant Singh (initially impleaded as respondent No. 2) had not disclosed the true owner despite knowing the ownership connection (his wife being a partner in the firm) and despite earlier denying ownership.
The Tribunal had also noted that the claimant was a destitute, illiterate widow and that the principal culpability for delay lay with her counsel's gross apathy and callousness rather than with the claimant herself.
The Tribunal considered that to dismiss the petition after a long contest (ten years) on a technical ground of limitation would amount to a travesty of justice; this influenced the decision to exercise discretion in favour of condonation.
The Court emphasized the legislative purpose: victims of motor accidents are often ignorant or illiterate and may have difficulty in tracing the true owner or insurer. Parliament has granted Claims Tribunals discretion to condone delays where sufficient cause exists.
The Court found the Tribunal had conducted a proper inquiry, identified relevant facts (late disclosure by the party who knew the owner; claimant's vulnerable status; delay attributable largely to counsel), and reasonably concluded that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay in impleading respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court concluded there was no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's discretionary finding and affirmed the Tribunal's decision on condonation of delay.
On the claimant's cross-objections seeking higher compensation (Rs. 50,000) and interest at 12% from the date of filing, the Court accepted the Tribunal's assessment. The Tribunal had considered the deceased's maintenance contribution (alleged Rs. 200 per month) and the total circumstances before awarding Rs. 32,400. The Court found no force in the claimant's contention about a higher income figure or entitlement to pre-judgment interest, particularly in light of the prolonged pendency and parts of the delay being attributable to claimant's side.

Holding and Implications

Final Ruling: The appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is dismissed and the Tribunal's findings condoning the delay in impleading respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are affirmed. The Tribunal's award of compensation (Rs. 32,400 jointly and severally from respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4) stands. The claimant's cross-objections requesting Rs. 50,000 and interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing are dismissed.

Implications and immediate effects:

The Tribunal's discretionary exercise under section 110-A(3) to condone delay in impleading owner and insurer is upheld in this case on the particular facts found by the Tribunal (late discovery of owner from Transport Authority records; non-disclosure by an earlier-impleaded respondent; claimant's vulnerability and counsel's lapses).
The direct effect: the claimant's compensation award of Rs. 32,400 remains payable as ordered by the Tribunal, and the insurer's appeal is unsuccessful.
No new legal precedent or novel rule was articulated by the Court beyond affirming the proper exercise of the established statutory discretion under section 110-A(3) in these circumstances.
Each party was directed to bear their own costs.

Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Cross-objections dismissed. Tribunal findings on condonation of delay affirmed.

Show all summary ...

C.L Chaudhry, J.:— Yad Ram was killed in an accident on 8.12.1971 His mother Kamla Devi, a widow, filed compensation claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. It was stated in the petition that on 8.12.1971 at about 12.30 p.m Yad Ram was going on his motor cycle No. DLX 2920 on his right side of Mathura Road towards Faridabad. When the deceased had crossed the point at which another road leads to Jaitpur, the erring vehicle (truck No. DLG 1283) came from the opposite direction on its wrong side and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. The truck instead of proceeding to the other side of the central patri came on the wrong side of the central patri and collided against the motor cycle of the deceased. The motor cycle of the deceased was badly damaged and the deceased received serious injuries on his person, due to which he died within a period of ¾ hours. It was pleaded that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle most negligently and rashly. The vehicle was completely out of the control of the driver. Yad Ram was stated to be 27 years old doing contract work of painting independently. He was spending at least Rs. 200/- per month on the maintenance of the petitioner who was 48 years old. The respondent No. 1 was driving the offending truck in the course of his employment with his master. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the owners of the truck and respondent No. 4 was the insurer. Compensation was claimed against all the respondents jointly and severally. Respondent No. 1, Munshi Ram, driver did not contest the petition.

2. In the original petition Hamam Singh alleged to be the owner of the truck was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and insurance company was impleaded as respondent No. 3. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of Kamla Devi stating that instead of Hamam Singh, the name of Jaswant Singh may be added, as in fact, he was the owner of the truck. This application was allowed by order dated 12.2.1973 Jaswant Singh filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that he was not liable to pay any compensation as he was neither the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident nor was respondent No. 1 his employee on the date of the accident. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 10.7.1974:

(1) Whether Yad Ram sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLG 1283 on the part of respondent No. 1?

(2) Whether the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased?

(3) Whether the claim application against respondent No. 2 is barred by limitation?

(4) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom?

(5) Relief.

3. Parties went on trial on the above said issues.

4. On 24.4.1979, claimant requested that Guru Nanak Stone Mills may be added as respondent in the case as it was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. By order dated 24.4.1979, the court allowed the claimant's request and Guru Nanak Stone Mills was allowed to be added as respondent No. 3. Thereafter on disclosing the name of the insurance company, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was added as respondent No. 4. Written statements were filed on behalf of Gum Nanak Stone Mills and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Additional issues were framed on 7.9.1979, which are to the following effect:

(1) Whether the petition is within time against respondent No. 3?

(2) Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?

(3) Whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were joint owners of the truck No. DLG 1283 on the date of accident?

5. Further additional issues were also framed on 1.7.1980 which were in the following terms:

(6) Whether the petition is barred by limitation against respondent Nos. 3 and 4? If so, whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?

(7) Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased?

(8) Whether petitioner has no cause of action against respondent No. 4 and insurance company is not liable for the reasons stated in its written statement?

6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 14.7.1988 disposed of the petition.

7. Against the issue No. 1 framed on 10.7.1974 and on issue No. 7 framed on 1.7.1980, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident in question resulting in the death of Yad Ram was the direct offspring of rash and negligent driving on the part of Munshi Ram, respondent No. 1, the driver of truck No. DLG 1283 and there was no negligence on the part of Yad Ram. Issue No. 2 framed on 10.7.1974 was decided in favour of the claimant. On issue No. 3 framed on 7.9.1979 it was held that the respondent No. 3 alone was the owner of the truck on the date of the accident. On issue No. 1 framed on 7.9.1979 and issue No. 6 framed on 1.7.1980 it was held that the petition against both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was within time and there was sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Against issue No. 3 framed on 10.7.1974 it was held that claimant had no cause of action against respondent No. 2. Against issue No. 8 framed on 1.7.1980 it was held that the petitioner has cause of action against respondent No. 4, who is liable as insurer of truck No. DLG 1283. On issue No. 4 framed on 10.7.1974 the finding is that the petitioner was entitled to recover the compensation of Rs. 32,400/- jointly and severally from respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.6 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal which is under disposal. The only contention that was raised before this court was that the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 framed on 7.9.1979 and issue No. 6 framed on 1.7.1980 were incorrect. The Tribunal committed a legal error by condoning the delay in filing the petition against respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

8. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal which is under disposal. The only contention that was raised before this court was that the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 framed on 7.9.1979 and issue No. 6 framed on 1.7.1980 were incorrect. The Tribunal committed a legal error by condoning the delay in filing the petition against respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved.

10. Mr. Sabharwal contended that the petitioner had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner. It was a case of gross negligence on the part of the claimant as not to implead the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within the stipulated period. No ground for condonation of delay was made out. There was inordinate delay of 8 years.

11. While returning the finding in favour of the claimant the Tribunal observed that the petitioner had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner. The petitioner first impleaded Harnam Singh. She later on gave up Harnam Singh and impleaded Jaswant Singh. The trial continued till 1979 when from the record of the Transport Authority it is revealed that Guru Nanak Stone Mills was the owner of the truck. The petitioner would have, without any difficulty, obtained the particulars from the Transport Authority even before presentation of the petition in 1972 when the petitioner after giving up Harnam Singh impleaded Jaswant Singh as the owner. The petitioner did not give up Jaswant Singh and the counsel for the petitioner instead made the statement that Jaswant Singh and respondent No. 3 were the joint owners of the vehicle. It is further observed by the Tribunal that Jaswant Singh filed the written statement in November 1972 and clearly stated that he was not the owner of the truck. He, however, did not disclose as to who was the owner of the truck. No doubt the respondent No. 2 was not bound to disclose the name of the real owner but the fact remains that he was not a stranger to the owner and he knew that respondent No. 3 was the owner of the vehicle in which his own wife was one of the partners. If the petitioner was guilty of callousness in not finding the name of the owner from the relevant records of Transport Authority, non-disclosure of the name of real owner on the part of respondent No. 2 who had taken the offending truck on superdari was neither moral nor equitable act. The Tribunal further observed that if the petition was thrown out after a lapse of 10 years of contest on the technical ground of limitation it would tantamount to travesty of justice. If respondent No. 2 had disclosed the name of respondent No. 3 as owner and petitioner even then had failed to implead respondent No. 3, there would have been no justification to entertain the petition. It was further observed that another fact also could not be lost sight of that the claimant was an illiterate lady now on the threshold of old age and that it was not she but her lawyers who exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting her case. The punishment for that should not be given to the petitioner. In these circumstances the delay in impleading the respondent No. 3 was condoned. Regarding insurance company, respondent No. 4, it was observed by the Tribunal, that the case of the insurance company stood on entirely different footing. As soon as the respondent No. 3 disclosed the name of the insurer, the latter was impleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge of insurance which the respondent No. 3 alone knew. The petition against respondent No. 4 could not, therefore, be held as barred by time because the factum of insurance was within the personal knowledge of respondent No. 3 alone. The limitation would hit the petitioner if she knew the insurer and omitted to implead the insurance company. The delay in impleading the respondent No. 4 was, therefore, condoned.

12. The contention of Mr. Sabharwal is that the court had observed that the claimant had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner and her lawyer also exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting the case. On these findings the delay should not have been condoned. On the other hand counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the claimant is an illiterate lady and a widow. She should not be punished for the negligence on the part of her counsel. Otherwise it would amount to travesty of justice.

13. I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In my opinion the contention of Mr. Sabharwal has no merit. The Tribunal has been vested with powers under section 110-A(3) of the Act to entertain the application after the expiry of the period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application in time. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion. I entirely agree with those findings of the Tribunal that the claimant came to know of the real owner when record from the Transport Authority was produced. Respondent No. 2, Jaswant Singh very well knew that the truck belonged to Guru Nanak Stone Mills, a partnership firm in which his wife was a partner. Jaswant Singh took the truck on superdari from the criminal court. The claimant was a destitute widow and an illiterate lady on the threshold of her old age and that it was not she but her lawyers who exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting her case. If the petitioner was thrown out after a lapse of 10 years of contest on the technical ground of limitation it would tantamount to travesty of justice.

14. I may add that for the victims of motor vehicle accidents who are mostly ignorant, illiterate and whose number is ever growing, it is not easy sometimes to trace and identify the vinculum juris and find out the true owner. Parliament has, therefore, given power to the Claims Tribunals to entertain applications for compensation even after the statutory period of six months provided that there are sufficient causes that prevented a claim being made within the period of six months.

15. The Tribunal after proper enquiry and due consideration exercised its discretion in a sound and reasonable manner. I do not want to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in condoning the delay in impleading the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The finding on this aspect is affirmed. No other point was canvassed before me.

16. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The claimant, respondent No. 1, has also filed cross-objections being C.M No. 607 of 1983. By these cross-objections it is claimed that the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimant and the claimant was also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. I have considered the cross-objections and have heard the learned counsel for the claimant. It is stated that the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs. 400/- per month and not Rs. 300/- per month. I see no force in this contention. The Tribunal has awarded the amount after taking into consideration the entire circumstances. It was stated in the petition that the deceased was spending Rs. 200/- per month on the maintenance of the petitioner. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 200/- as alleged by the claimant. I see no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the claimant. The other contention that the petitioner should have been allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, is also devoid of force. The petition remained pending for a sufficiently long time. Because of certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the claimant the real owner was impleaded by the claimant after a long time. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that the claimant is entitled to the interest from the date of filing of the petition. The cross-objections are devoid of merit and are dismissed.

17. Appeal dismissed.