Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the claim petition has abated in view of the death of the driver-cum-owner, who came to be deleted from the array of respondents vide order, dated 2nd December, 2006, and his legal representatives have not been brought on record. The argument is misconceived and devoid of any force for the following reasons: {Para 18}
21. These provisions of law provide that the mandate of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") is not applicable in such cases. It is for the Tribunal to decide the cases, as early as possible.
22. The Apex Court and other High Courts have held that the Courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, hyper technicalities and mystic maybes and that should not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition and to defeat the rights of the claimants.
24. The High Court of Rajasthan in the judgment delivered in a case titled as Shiv Chandra and another versus Jasvinder Singh and others, reported in MANU/RH/0106/1991 : 1992 ACJ 747, has discussed the provisions of law and the Rules, which were applicable in the State of Rajasthan and held that the appeal had not abated on the failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased owner on record.
25. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Biro Devi and others, reported in MANU/DE/0098/2014 : 2015 ACJ 340, has also discussed the provisions of Section 169 of the MV Act and the Rules applicable and held that the death of the owner of the vehicle is not a ground for evading the liability and it has no legal significance in the contractual relationship between the insurer and insured for the purpose of fastening the liability.
28. This Rule provides which of the provisions of the CPC are applicable. Order XXII of the CPC deals with abatement and the provisions of said Order have not been made applicable. Only on this count, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant merits to be turned down.
29. Chapter XII of the MV Act is a complete code and provides the mechanism how to determine the claim petitions and appeals. Section 155 of the MV Act provides what is the effect of death of the insured on cause of action. It specifically provides that Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) cannot affect the claim petitions or appeals if the insured has died after the happening of the event.
30. It is apt to reproduce Section 155 of the MV Act herein:
"155. Effect of death on certain causes of action. - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been insured, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
FAO No. 17 of 2008
Decided On: 20.03.2015
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brijbala and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
Citation: MANU/HP/0132/2015,2016 ACJ 1554 (HP).
Print Page