I.A. Ansari, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30.4.2003, passed, in MAC Case No. 401/2001, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, whereby the learned Tribunal has determined that the claimant-respondent No. 1 is, entitled to receive, in all, Rs. 4,44,836 as compensation for the death of her husband, namely, Dilip Rajbongshi, in a motor vehicular accident and the present appellant as well as respondent No. 2 herein are liable to make payment of the said awarded amount in equal proportion. Aggrieved by the award, so passed, the appellant, who has been directed to share half of the amount of compensation, so awarded, has preferred this appeal.
2. MAC Case No. 401/2001 aforementioned arose out of an application made, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short, 'the MV Act'), by the respondent No. l, namely, Smt. Rita Das claiming compensation for the death of her husband, Dilip Rajbongshi, her case being, in brief, thus: On 17.6.2001, her husband was driving a truck bearing registration No. ASU-4947 at the National Highway 37, and as it had been heavily raining, her husband, while passing through Golaghat, stopped and parked the vehicle on his left side of the National Highway near Borsapori Tea Estate under Bokakhat Police Station. While her husband had so kept parked the vehicle on his left side of the highway, another truck, bearing registration No. AS-25-A-0676, which belongs to respondent No. 2 herein, came from the opposite direction and dashed against her husband's parked truck. As a result of the said collision, the claimant's husband sustained injuries and died on the spot and the handyman of the vehicle No. ASU-4947 also sustained injuries. For the death of her husband, the claimant sought for compensation of a sum of Rs. 15 lakh.
3. The respondent No. 2 herein, as owner of the vehicle No. AS-25-A-0676. contested the claim, his case being, in brief, thus; The vehicle No. AS-25-A-0676 had a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident and the driver also had a valid driving licence. Though the vehicle No. AS-25-A-0676 was not at fault and this respondent is not liable to pay compensation, yet if his vehicle is found to be involved in the said accident and he is found liable to pay compensation, the insurer of the said vehicle, namely, M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (i.e., respondent No. 4 herein) is bound to indemnify the same.
4. The claim proceedings were also contested by the present appellant as owner of the vehicle No. ASU-4947, i.e., the vehicle, which the claimant's husband had kept parked and inside which vehicle the claimant's husband had died. This vehicle stood, according to the appellant herein, insured with the respondent No. 5 herein, namely, M/s. United India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5. The learned Tribunal has, however, held, as indicated hereinabove, the owners of both the said vehicles liable to pay compensation. It is the liability fastened on the appellant as owner of the vehicle No. ASU- 4947, which is under challenge in the present appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. J.L Borbhuyan, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. G. Jalan, for the respondent No. 4. I have also heard Mr. N.D. Thakur, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents, though notices stand served on them.
7. As the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant has not been challenged or disputed, the same has attained finality and the correctness thereof need not be gone into in the present appeal.
8. What this appeal raises is the question as to whether the present appellant and/or the respondent No. 5 herein, i.e., the insurer of the vehicle No. ASU-4947 is liable to share the amount of compensation, which has been determined by the learned Tribunal ?
9. While considering the above aspect of the matter, what needs to be noted is that it has been the specific case of the claimant that because of heavy rain, her husband had kept parked the vehicle, i.e., the truck No. ASU-4947, on the left side of the highway and when this vehicle stood so parked, the truck No. AS-25-A-0676 came from the opposite direction and dashed against her husband's parked vehicle. Though the respondent No. 2 herein, who is owner of the vehicle No. AS-25-A-0676, denied the description of the accident, so given.in the claim application, he (respondent No. 2) adduced no evidence in this regard. As against this, the claimant has examined, I notice, the Police Officer, who, on receipt of the information about the accident, came to the place of accident and made enquiries. This witness's undisputed evidence is that on his arrival at the place of accident, he found the vehicle No. ASU-4947 on its left side of the road and there was no mark, on the road, indicating that the vehicle No. ASU-4947 had skid. The condition in which the vehicle No. ASU-4947 was, thus, found by the Police Officer (PW4), who had come to the spot, immediately after the accident, clearly shows that the vehicle No. ASU-4947 was kept parked on its extreme left of the highway and there was absolutely no fault on the part of the claimant's husband, who had so parked the vehicle No. ASU-4947 there.
10. In the face of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the said accident took place, because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-25-A-0676 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'). In a situation, such as the present one, merely because of the fact that two vehicles were involved in the accident, no liability to make payment of compensation could have been imposed on the present appellant as owner of the vehicle No. ASU-4947 and/or its insurer, i.e., the respondent No. 4 herein. When two vehicles are involved in an accident, appropriate it is that the owners of both the vehicles be made parties to the claim proceeding so as to enable the Tribunal to determine as to whose fault, if any, has led to the accident. Making the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident as parties to a claim proceeding does not necessarily mean that the owners/insurers of both the vehicles must be fastened with the liability to pay compensation even if there was no fault on the part of the driver of one of such vehicles. This fundamental principle of determination of compensation, in an application under Section 166 of the MV Act (which embodies the principle of payment of compensation on fault) appears to have escaped the pattention of the learned Tribunal.
11. As far as respondent No. 2 herein, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, he has not preferred any appeal and has chosen not to contest this appeal.
12. The learned Tribunal has already held that at the relevant time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured nor was it being driven by a driver having valid driving licence. On these considerations, no direction to the respondent No. 5 herein to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle was passed by the learned Tribunal. The conclusions, so reached, by the learned Tribunal have not been challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle. Viewed, thus, I see no reason to interfere with the liability to make payment of compensation, which the learned Tribunal has imposed on the respondent No. 2 herein.
13. In view of the above, suitable directions need to be passed, in this appeal, modifying the impugned award.
14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed that the entire amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal, i.e., the sum of Rs. 4,44,836 shall be paid by the respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle.
15. With the above observations and modifications in the impugned award, dated 30.4.2003, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
16. No order as to costs.
17. Send back the LCR.