Ajit Singh and Another vs Tharu and Others

K.K. Gupta, J.—It is a hard-hit case of lady and her minor children who were deprived of their bread-earner, expenses for whose

cremation were even borne out by the villagers because of the poverty of the lady who also turned mad because of the shock and this lady is

fighting for accident claim for the last more than fourteen years. Her husband, Munshi Ram, who was a mason by profession, was run over by a

speeding truck No. JKN 1159, driven by Ajit Singh, driver, Appellant No. 1 and owned by Puran Singh, Appellant No. 2 and others, on August

3, 1971. Report of this accident was also lodged with Police Station Rishna, which resulted in filing a challan against Ajit Singh, Appellant No. 1

and ultimately in his conviction by the Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, R.S. Pura on August 8, 1972.

The present claim petition was filed by Tharu, the widow of the deceased and her minor children before the Accidents Claims Tribunal on

18.11.1972. The Tribunal first of all framed the following preliminary issue:

Whether there s any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in presentation of the petition in this case? OPD

The Tribunal on 10.3.1975 decided this issue holding that the petition was time barred in regard to the claim made by Tharu, Respondent No. 1

herein nut maintainable in regard to the claim of other Petitioners. Afterwards the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Munshi Ram was killed on 3.8.1971 in an accident with vehicle No. JKN 1159 being driven by non-Applicant No. 2 and others?

OPP

(2) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of non-Applicant No. 1 who was driving the vehicle JKN 1159

involved in the accident? OPP

(3) What is the amount of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled to get and in what proportion and from whom? OPP

(4) Whether the claim has not been properly valued, if so how? OP non-Applicant No. 2.

(5) Whether the Applicant has not disclosed the reason for the cause of action. If so how and what is its effect on the case? OP non-Applicant

Nos. 1 and 2.

(6) Whether the claim petition is liable to be rejected, if so how? OP non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 2.

(7) Whether the application is not in the prescribed form. If so what is its effect? OP non-Applicant No. 1.

(8) Relief.

Both the parties led evidence in the case and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,280/- to the Petitioners except Tharu, Respondent No. 1, out of

which Rs. 10,000/- were to be paid by Ajit Singh, Appellant No. 1 herein and Rs. 7,280/- by Puran Singh, Appellant No. 2 herein. The insurance

company, Respondent No. 10 herein, was absolved of the liability. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellants herein have come up in appeal before

this Court.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record before us. The accident occurred on August 3, 1971 near Kotli

Mian Fateh, Tehsil R.S. Pura when Munshi Ram deceased was moving on the road. The contention of Ajit Singh, Appellant No. 1, the driver of

the vehicle, was that the truck slipped due to rains which caused the accident. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has not disputed

the happening of the accident or the negligence of the driver in causing the death. He has only disputed the quantum of compensation as well as the

liability placed upon the Appellants. According to him Appellant No. 1 is a poor driver who has already undergone the sentence because of his

negligent act whereas Puran Singh, Appellant No. 2, was the owner of the vehicle only to a limited extent and as the vehicle was insured with

Respondent No. 10 which insurance policy was also subsisting at that time, there was no reason for the insurance company not to have paid the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, have contended that besides the insurance

company the owner of the vehicle and driver plying the vehicle are also liable to pay the compensation and in fact one lac of rupees were required

to be paid as compensation to the aggrieved lady and her minor children, keeping in view her condition and the circumstances of the case. We

have considered these contentions raised by the either side.

In this case the facts are not disputed and as such there is no need to discuss the evidence placed on record by the parties. So far as the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, we can only say that it is not excessive in any respect but in fact a meagre amount

has been awarded which decision we do not want to interfere with. Now the question comes as to who is to be made liable for paying such

compensation. The vehicle in question was admittedly insured with the insurance company, Respondent No. 10, against third party risk and that

insurance policy was subsisting at the time of accident. The learned presiding officer of the Claims Tribunal while absolving the insurance company

of its liability to pay the awarded amount has not given cogent reasons excepting that the vehicle was insured in the name of one Sardari Lal who

was not a party in the proceedings. Sections 94 and 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act deal with the insurance of the vehicle. Section 94 makes it

compulsory for a vehicle to be insured against a third party risk. This section makes it imperative to insure all vehicles which are to be used in

public places. The object of this provision of law is to ensure the insurance of all the vehicles which are to be used in public places so that if a third

party suffers any damage due to use of said vehicle in a public place he would be able to get damages for the same straightway from the insurance

company and the recovery of such damages would not depend upon the financial condition of the driver or the owner of vehicle. Section 95 of the

aforesaid Act provides the mode of the insurance policy to be issued and the limits of their liability. Section 96 of the said Act has been introduced

in order to enforce the duty of insurer to satisfy the judgment against the persons insured in respect of third party risk. This provision of law

suggests that the insurer cannot avoid liability under the policy in relation to the claim by a third party by introducing exceptions and conditions,

other than those mentioned in the section. The principle underlying this law is that once there is a contract of insurance subsisting, it is not open to

the insurer to avoid the liability by relying on certain exceptions and conditions in the policy which are ineffective as against the third party.

Taking into consideration the above discussed law, it does not lie in the mouth of the insurance company, Respondent No. 10, to come with a

plea that the insured was a person other than the owner and as he was not a party in the case, it is absolved of its liability covering the insurance

risk. No doubt Sardarilal was not a party in the case but this question had attracted some significance and importance only in case some other

owner of the vehicle had come forward to claim some compensation in regard to the vehicle but so far third party risk covered under the policy

was concerned the insurance company, Respondent No. 10, was liable to make it in case of the accident covering that risk. It cannot, therefore,

be said that the insurance company was not liable to pay the awarded amount qua third party. As the award amount is very meagre we think it

proper that this amount shall be realised from the insurance company, Respondent No. 10.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is accepted to this extent only that the award amount shall be paid by the insurance company, Respondent

No. 10. The Tribunal has not granted any interest to the claimants. We, however, feel that it is a fit case where such interest is to be allowed and

we grant interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till realisation.

The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.