Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exh.
Pdf Text: - 1 -
ORDER BELOW EXH.22 IN MACP NO.310 OF 2022
The application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code for addition party i.e. Tata Motors Ltd. as
Opposite party No.2 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as
Insurer. The applicant is the owner of offending Bus. They
entered into Agreement with BEST Undertaking on 28.02.2020
for Carriage Services for Public Transport of 140 Electric AC
Buses and 160 Midi Electric AC Buses. Further, Agreement
dated 24.12.2020 is for additional 40 Buses on the routes
provided by Opposite party. Therefore, Tata Motors Ltd. is
necessary party. The offending Bus is duly insured with The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Hence, the Insurer be added.
2. The applicant has filed reply below Exh.27 and submitted
that the application is meritless. It is not necessary to add Tata
Motors Ltd. and Insurance company. The Opposite party is
sufficient to decide the claim petition. The concept of the owner
is only confined to the individual person. As per the Agreement,
it is clear that the actual control and possession of the offending
vehicle is with Opposite party. The Opposite party has right to
develop the details in respect of operating routes and stops of
the Buses. The proposed Opposite party No.2 has no right to
schedule the routes and stops the Buses. The Opposite party
has right to collect fare collection. The Buses have been
acquired by way of Lease Agreement. Hence, there is direct
control, supervision and possession of the Opposite party on the
Buses. In Karnataka, KSRTC has obtained Buses on lease and
used for public service. Therefore, KSRTC is required to get the
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 -
vehicle insured. Therefore, the application is liable to be
rejected.
3. The applicant has relied on the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court as under :-
•
Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. The New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and another reported in (2016) 2 SCC 382
•
Khenyei Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and
another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273
•
RSRT Vs. Kailasnath Kothari and others, (1997) 7 SCC 481
•
Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186
In the above judgments, it is held that mere non-
exhibition of documents does not disentitle for a claim, when
there is sufficient evidence and documents to prove rash and
negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. It is further held
that the owner means the person who is primarily liable as per
the lease agreement. There is joint and several liability of lessee
as owner. There is also liability of Insurer. The Bus was given
on hire to State Road Transport Corporation under a lease
agreement. The accident occurred while the Bus was being
driven under the control of SRTC. Hence, SRTC has to pay
compensation and shall recover the amount from the owner of
the Bus. It means the original owner of the Bus is also liable for
payment of compensation along with BEST Undertaking.
Hence, the case laws filed by the applicant shows that the
application has to be allowed. The another judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in
Khenyei (Supra) is in respect of composite
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 -
negligence and joint tort-feasors. Therefore, it is not applicable
in the present case because it is related with the claim when
accident took place in between two vehicles.
4. Opposite party BEST has not filed any reply on the
application.
5. Heard argument of proposed parties, applicant and
Opposite party BEST. The proposed parties have filed various
documents and affidavit along with application.
6. The Agreement dated 28.02.2020 is executed in between
BEST Undertaking and Tata Motors Ltd. I am going through
terms and conditions of the Agreement. The ownership of the
Buses will be along with operators only. All the Buses shall be
registered in the name of operators. As per the Agreement, the
operator is M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The operator shall provide
the Buses to the BEST as per the requirements. The company
will also provide drivers and technicians for the Buses. The
operator should develop charging infrastructure for charging of
Buses. The operator shall perform regular maintenance of the
Buses. The operator shall pay time to time all taxes and duties
which are payable. The operator shall be responsible for all
fines and claims levied by the statutory authority due to
violation and negligence arising out of the operation of Bus, like
accident claims, damages due to accident to persons or property
of fatal or injury or any loss/damage to any property payable
under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act or Rules. BEST
Undertaking shall not be liable under no circumstances or
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
responsible to pay any compensation that may be imposed by
the statutory authority, in respect of accident or injuries. It
shall be the responsibility of the operator to engage Advocate
and to pay their fees and compensation as required to be paid in
respect of any Court matter which may arise due to the operatio
of Buses by the BEST. It means the BEST Authority is not liable
for payment of compensation to the victims who got injured in
the motor accident. It is the duty of the M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.
to pay compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. It is the duty of
the above company to pay Insurance of the Buses. Therefore, it
is necessary to add M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. and The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure
Code as they are proper and necessary party to decide the
accident claim. Accordingly, the application is liable to be
allowed.
(M.S. Agrawal)
Member, C.R. 8
Date : 03.04.2025 MACT, Mumbai
ms*
-- 4 of 4 --