Allahabad High Court: Attau Rahman Masoodi, J., allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order by applying the principle of res judicata.
The factual matrix of the case is such that the present appeal has arisen out of the judgment and award dated 16-02-2016 delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 275 of 2007 whereby compensation along with interest was awarded to the claimant who suffered serious eye injury. The accident involved two vehicles i.e., a truck and a car whereby the truck was insured by the appellant.
The correctness of the award is in question whereby the entire liability has been imposed on the appellant although the case was that of composite negligence and the tribunal ought to have considered the judgment delivered by MACT Gonda in the same matter. The appellant has also questioned the multiplier applied for calculation of the claim.
A plea of finality on the aspect of proportionate liability was advanced by the counsel for the appellant, Bhanu Prakash Dubey and Kartikey Dubey in the subsequent proceedings before MACT Lucknow on the basis of the judgment delivered by MACT Gonda. It was further submitted that since the judgment rendered in the earlier proceedings concerns the same accident, therefore, this issue too was liable to be decided in the manner already settled between the parties.
It was contended by Alka Dubey, counsel for the respondent that MACT Lucknow has not committed any error since it has exclusive jurisdiction and is not bound by Section 11 CPC.
The Court referred to Section 169 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 209. 215, 220 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 while deliberating over the present matter and observed that that the MACT is obligated to frame the issues on which the right decision of the claim appears to depend.
The Court relied on the judgment titled Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty, (2018) 16 SCC 228 and held that the findings of MACT Lucknow are not justifiable as it should have considered the objections of the appellant and weighed the same in accordance with law. The principle of res judicata was applicable between the parties and the same should have been applied on the aspect of proportional liability of both the parties, accordant with the earlier judgment/award.
Thus, the Court modified the award rendered by MACT Lucknow by fixing the liability to pay compensation equally on both the appellant and respondent. With respect to the appellant’s contention regarding multiplier, the Court accepted the same and held that MACT Lucknow ought to have applied the multiplier as 16 based on the age of the claimant.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment/award was modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal was accordingly disposed of. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vikas Sethi, First Appeal in Order No. 581 of 2016, decided on 31-07-2020]