Mohd. Khalil and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad Pataskar and ors.

Mohd. Khalil and anr. vs Ram Prasad Pataskar and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510543

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510543
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.K. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Feb 22, 2000
Case Number: M.A. No. 414 of 1992
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Khalil and anr.

Respondent

Ram Prasad Pataskar and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh
Reported In: 2002ACJ472

Excerpt

.....it cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. .....to reimburse the amount of compensation to the owner of the jeep.4. learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appellants had filed another appeal (m.a. no. 164 of 1993) against the award granted in favour of another passenger mahesh prasad. in the said appeal, the division bench of this court has also fastened the liability on the appellants, relying upon b.v. nagaraju v. oriental insurance co. ltd. 1996 acj 1178 (sc).5. it is clear that the accident took place when the amended motor vehicles act, 1988 had already come into force. therefore, the decision in the claim shall be governed by the said act. it is also not disputed that the offending jeep was insured with respondent no. 3. as has been held in new india assurance co. ltd. v. satpal singh 2000 acj 1 (sc), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to cover the risk of third party. in view of above and the division bench decision in m.a. no. 164 of 1993, which covers the present case also, it is clear that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to reimburse the liability of payment of awarded amount to the owner thereof and the award deserves to be modified to the above extent.6. accordingly, the appeal is allowed. the impugned award against the appellant though is maintained, it is further directed that the appellant no. 1, owner would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent no. 3, insurance company. in case the amount has already been paid by the appellant no. 1 owner, he shall be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent no. 3 new india assurance co. ltd., otherwise, the respondent no. 3 shall be also jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay the amount of award to the claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Full Judgment

V.K. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 3.9.1992 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1992 by which though the appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, jeep No. MP 18-1085 were saddled with liability to pay compensation, but respondent No. 3, the insurer was exonerated from its liability.

2. The facts not disputed in this appeal are that in the night intervening between 28/29.4.1990, a minor boy Mahendra Kumar Pataskar, aged about 14 years, was travelling from Kotma to Shahdol along with others in the jeep No. MP 18-1085, which met with an accident near a pulia at Jamua. The minor boy Mahendra Kumar Pataskar sustained grievous injuries, which proved fatal. Claim for compensation was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the unfortunate parents of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal held that the appellants, owner and driver of the said jeep were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 44,500. However, the respondent No. 3 insurer was exonerated from liability as there was breach of policy conditions. It was held that since the jeep was insured for private use and it was carrying passengers, after realising Rs. 10 each from the passengers including the deceased, the insurer was not liable to reimburse the amount of compensation to the owner of the jeep.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appellants had filed another appeal (M.A. No. 164 of 1993) against the award granted in favour of another passenger Mahesh Prasad. In the said appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has also fastened the liability on the appellants, relying upon B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC).

5. It is clear that the accident took place when the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had already come into force. Therefore, the decision in the claim shall be governed by the said Act. It is also not disputed that the offending jeep was insured with respondent No. 3. As has been held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to cover the risk of third party. In view of above and the Division Bench decision in M.A. No. 164 of 1993, which covers the present case also, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 shall be liable to reimburse the liability of payment of awarded amount to the owner thereof and the award deserves to be modified to the above extent.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award against the appellant though is maintained, it is further directed that the appellant No. 1, owner would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No. 3, insurance company. In case the amount has already been paid by the appellant No. 1 owner, he shall be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., otherwise, the respondent No. 3 shall be also jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay the amount of award to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Mohd. Khalil and anr. vs Ram Prasad Pataskar and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.K. Agrawal, J.

Motor Vehicles