REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2164    OF 2004

Bimlesh and Ors.                 …Appellants

Versus

 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.               ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

The  claimants  are  in  appeal  by  special  leave  

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 1, 2002  

of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at  

Chandigarh.  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  

1

that 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. Siri Bhagwan was the registered owner of a Jeep  

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  

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  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  

2

terms of the policy of the insurance, the Insurance Company  

is only required to indemnify the owner in 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.  

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.  

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 Company is liable. On the other  

hand,  the  Insurance  Company  has  denied  its  liability  

principally on the ground that deceased being owner of the  

3

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 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 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 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  

maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with  

4

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  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  needs to be sent back to the  

Claims Tribunal.  

6. The appeal is partly allowed.  The order dated  

October 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 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  

5

award  now.   It  will  be  open  to  the  aggrieved  party  to  

challenge such award in a statutory appeal.  No order as to  

costs.   

                        ……………… …. J.

                   (Aftab Alam)

                             ..……………… … J.

                   (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi, August  3, 2010.

6