BIMLESH & ORS.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

                     [2010] 9 S.C.R. 605


                      BIMLESH & ORS.                              A
        1~                    v.
              NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
               (Civil Appeal No. 2164 of 2004)
                      AUGUST 3, 2010
                                                                  B
             [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A, 166, 168 and 169
- Motor accident - Claim for compensation u/s. 163-A - For
the death of owner of the vehicle - Maintainability of the        C
petition questioned - Tribunal holding that petition was
maintainable - High Court holding the same as not
maintainable - On appeal, held: The claims tribunal in a
claim petition, is required to decide all the issues in one go
and not in piecemeal - The question of maintainability is         o
connected with the liability of the Insurance Company -
Therefore, the matter is sent back to claims tribunal to decide
all the issues together.

     Owner of the insured vehicle died in a road accident
while he was driving the vehicle. His dependants filed            E
petition u/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation. The Insurance Company questioned the
maintainability of the petition stating that it was liable to
compensation only for third party and not to the owner.
The tribunal held that the petition was maintainable. High        F
Court, in revision, held that it was not maintainable.

     In the instant appeal, appellants contended that
additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the
driver of the vehicle and in the policy, persons or classes       G
of persons entitled to drive included the insured and thus
tt)e insurance company was liable.

     Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                             605                                  H
    606       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A     HELD: 1.1 The whole object of summary procedure
  required to be followed by the Claims Tribunal, is to
  ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the
  Claims Tribunal expeditiously. The inquiry u/s. 168 and
  the summary procedure do not contemplate the
B controversy arising out of claim application being
  decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to
  dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while
  deciding the claim application. (Para 5] (608-D-F]

        1.2 The objection raised by the Insurance Company
C about maintainability of claim petition is intricately
  connected with its liability which in the facts and
  circumstances of the case, is dependent on
  determination of the effect of the additional premium paid
  by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other
D terms of the policy including terms of the policy. Since
  all the issues (points for determination) are required to be
  considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of
  the evidence that may be led in by the parties and not in
  piecemeal, it is not proper to consider the rival
E contentions on merits at this stage. The matter is sent
  back to the Claims Tribunal. [Para 5] [608-F-H]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2164 of 2004.
F       From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2002 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
    5952 of 2001.

          B.K. Satija for the Appellants.
G
        Manish Singhvi, P.V. Yogeswaran, Jaswant Perraya for the
    Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H
/



     BIMLESH & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.                    607
                        LTD.
    ··· , · R:M. LODHA, J. 1. The claimants are in appeal by special      A
    leave aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 1,
    2002 of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
    atChandigarh. The High Court by the said order, set aside the
    order dated August 7, 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims
    Tribunal, Gurgaon, (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') and held that   B
    claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the
    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act, 1988') was not
    maintainable against the respondent-New India Assurance
    Company Ltd. (for short, 'the Insurance Company').

        · 2. Hiri Bhagwan was the registered owner of a Jeep              C
     bearing No. HR-26-G-0179 which was being used as a
     Maxicab. The said vehicle was insured with the Insurance
     Company for the period from August 30, 1999 to August 29,
     2000. He himself used to drive that vehicle. An accident
     occurred on August 15, 2000; Siri Bhagwan while driving the          D
     said vehicle on Rewari-Pataudi Road, to save a dog, hit a tree
    ·and died. His wife and children-the appellants herein filed     a
     claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 before the
     Claims Tribunal against the Insurance Company claiming
     compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Insurance               E
     Company filed the written statement and a plea was raised that
     the claim petition was not competent because the deceased
     was not a third party being the driver and owner of the vehicle
     and under the Act, 1988 and terms of the policy of the insurance,
     the Insurance Company is only required to indemnify the owner
    ~.
                                                                          F
     i1\case of third party loss.

        3. The Claims Tribunal heard the parties on the question
    of maintainability of the claim petition and by its order dated
    August 7, 2001 held that the claim petition was maintainable.         G

           4. Being not satisfied with the order dated August 7, 2001
     passed by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company
     preferred revision petition before the High Court. The High Court
     set aside the order of the Claims Tribunal and held that claim
     petition was not maintainable.                                       H
     608     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 9 S.C.R.


A          5. The case of the claimants appears to be that additional
     premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver
     of the vehicle and in the policy issued by the· Insurance
     Company, in para 5, persons or classes of persons entitled to
     drive includes the insured and accordingly the Insurance
 B   Company is liable. On the other hand, the Insurance Company
     has denied its liability principally on the ground that deceased
     being owner of the vehicle is not a 'third party'. Section 166 of
     the Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation
     arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Section
 c   165(1) may be made, inter alia, by all or any of the legal
     representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from
     the accident. Section 169 makes a provision that the Claims
     Tribunal shall follow the summary procedure subject to any rules
     that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure,
     1908 is not applicable to the proceedings before the Claims
 0
     Tribunal except to the extent provided in sub-section (2) of
     Section 169 and the rules. The whole object of summary
     procedure is to ensure that claim application is heard and
     decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. The inquiry under
     Section 168 and the summary procedure that the Claims
'E   Tribunal has to follow do not contemplate the controversy
     arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal.
     The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one
     way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application.
     The objection raised by the Insurance Company about
 F   maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its
     liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case is
     dependent on determination of the effect of the additional
     premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and
     other terms of the policy including terms of the policy contained
 G   in para 5. Since all issues (points for determination) are
     required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in
     light of the evidence that may be let in by the parties and not in
     piecemeal, we do not think it proper to consider the rival
     contentions on merits at this stage. Suffice it to say that matter
 H   needs to be sent back to the Claims Tribunal.
 BIMLESH & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. 609
            LTD. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

     6. The appeal is partly allowed. The order dated October A
1, 2002 passed by the High Court as well as the order dated
August 7, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gurgaon are set aside. The claim petition shall be decided by
the Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties in accordance with
law, if not decided so far pursuant to the interim order dated B
March 29, 2004 passed by this Court. In case the inquiry has
been concluded during the pendency of this appeal, the Claims
Tribunal may make the award now. It will be open to the
aggrieved party to challenge such award in a statutory appeal.
No order as to costs.                                          c
K.K.T                                 Appeal partly allowed.