Divisional Manager, Oriental Insu.Co.Ltd. vs Naiz Ahmad and Ors.

This Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 20.12.2004 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in claim petition titled Naiz Ahmed and others Vs. Mubarak Ali and others, which shall be, hereinafter, referred to as

impugned award.

It is necessary to note brief facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal.

It appears that claimants filed a claim petition referred to, hereinabove, being the victims of vehicular accident, before Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Srinagar, on the ground that driver, namely, Ghulam Rasool Bhat has driven vehicle No.JK06602 (Matador), rashly and negligently and

caused accident. The deceased, Yasir Ahmad, who was traveling in the vehicle sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Respondents 1

and 2 in the claim petition had been set ex parte and respondent No.3 therein had caused appearance and filed objections. The following issues

were framed in the claim petition:

Whether on 31.11.2002 Ghulam Rasool Bhat respondent No.2 was plying TATA Matador No.JKQ6l602 so rashly and negligently that at

Naipali Nala District Doda while negotiating a curve he lost control over the same which fell in to a deep gorge and Yasir Ahmad who was

traveling in the same sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same? OPP

Whether due to nonjoinder of necessary and proper parties the petition is not maintainable? O. P. R2 and 3.

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident and as such the Insurance Company

cannot be saddled with the liability? O.P.R.3

In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion?

O.P. P.

Relief.

Petitioners led evidence but respondents had failed to lead evidence. Thus, the evidence of the petitioners had remained unrebutted. Thus, the

appellant (insurer) failed to prove the issues 2 and 3. Impugned award came to be passed in favour of the claimants against the insurer, owner and

insured. Accordingly, insurer (appellant) came to be saddled with the liability.

The main ground of attack in this appeal is that driver was carrying more than permissible specified number of passengers in the offending

vehicle at the time of causing accident near Naipali, Batote Kishtwar road on 30.11.2002 and, therefore, appellant/insurer cannot be saddled with

liability.

Heard. Perused. Considered.

Three points of law are required to be determined.

That insured, owner has committed breach because the driver while driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident was carrying more than

specified number of passengers which was beyond permissible capacity of the offending vehicle.

That whether the insurer is not liable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of

the Motor Vehicles Act in the given circumstances of the case.

If issues 1 and 2 are decided against the insurer then in that event question arises whether the insurer can be saddled with the liability only to the

extent of claim of permissible number of passengers as per the terms and conditions contained in the route permit and registration certificate read

with insurance policy.

In order to return finding on the questions formulated, hereinabove, it is necessary to notice subsection 2 of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act,

herein, which reads as under;

149(2). No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the

proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the

bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to

whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the

following grounds, namely:

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:

(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle

(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or

(b) for organized racing and speed testing, or

(c) for a purpose note allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or

(d) without sidecar being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or

(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been

disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or

(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or

(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in

some material particular.

This provision of law prescribes that what are the defences available to the insurer. These defences are very limited. Insurer cannot raise a plea

or defence which is not provided and prescribed by the said provisions of law.

If a breach is alleged, it is for the insurer to plead and prove the breach. Further it is also to be proved that breach was the cause of accident.

Division Bench of this Court has observed in a case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Gaffar Pandith reported in 2004(11) SLJ 692

that breach is to be pleaded and proved. Mere breach is not enough and insurer cannot escape from the liability. It is profitable to reproduce

para7, herein:

In the recent case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC1531, a threeJudge Bench of the Apex

Court has held that breach of policy condition, for example, disqualification of driver or invalid driving license of the driver has to be proved to

have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the

driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defence available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid

its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of

fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.

Thus the Insurance Company must not only prove, as a part of its defence, that the person driving the vehicle was disqualified or that he did not

hold a valid driving license, it is also required to establish that the insured i.e. the owner of the vehicle had made positive breach of the condition.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured

concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid license by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, "" the insurer

would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches of the condition of driving license is I are so

fundamental and bound to have contributed to the cause of the accident.

Apex Court in a case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 held as under:

It is beyond any doubt or dispute that under Section 149(2) of the Act an insurer, to whom notice of the bringing of any proceeding for

compensation has been given, can defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned therein.

However, Clause (a) opens with the words ""that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy"", implying that the insurer's

defence of the action would depend upon the terms of the policy. The said subclause contains three conditions of disjunctive character, namely, the

insurer can get away from the liability when (a) a named person drives the vehicle; (b) it was being driven by a person who did not have a duly

granted licence; and (c) driver is a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence.

A provision of a statute which is penal in nature visavis a provision which is beneficent to a third party must be interpreted differently. It is also

well known that the provisions contained in different expressions are ordinarily construed differently.

.......................................

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub section (2) (a)(ii) of

Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving

licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the

insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to

exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not

disqualified to drive at the relevant time.

......................................

(vi) Even where the insured is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by

the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the

said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the incident. The

Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply ""the rule of main purpose"" and the concept of ""fundamental breach"" to allow defences

available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.

Apex Court has also observed in case titled Punam Devi and anr. u. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in

AIR 2004 SC 1742 that breach is to be pleaded and proved. It is profitable to reproduce para2 of the said judgment herein:

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, 2002(7) SCC 456 it was held that the insurance company cannot

challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only ground open to insurer is contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004(1) Scale 180, this Court has held that ""mere absence, fake or

invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against

either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or

failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who

was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time."" In the present case, the insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had no

licence. The burden of proof that the driver had no licence was open to the insurer which it failed to discharge.

Applying the test to the instant case, it is admitted that insurer/appellant has failed to plead and prove the breach.

In order to avoid liability, the insurer was under legal obligation to prove that the cause of accident was overloading.

Apex Court in case titled B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1996 ACJ 1178 held that mere carrying more passengers in

a vehicle cannot be said to be a fundamental breach and the insurer cannot use the same as a weapon for avoiding liability. It is profitable to

reproduce para8 of the judgment herein:

The National Commission went for the strict construction of the exclusion clause. The reasoning that the extra passengers being carried in the

goods vehicle could not have contributed, in any manner, to the occurring of the accident, was barely noticed and rejected sans any plausible

account; even when the claim confining the damage to the vehicle only was limited in nature. We, thus, are of the view that in accord with the

Skandia's case, the aforesaid exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy, that is, to

indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle, which we hereby do.

High Court of Uttranchal in a case titled Saroj and ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in 2005 ACJ 906 has also taken

the same view. It is profitable to reproduce para13 of the said judgment herein:

We have perused the evidence on record. The accident was admitted by opposite party No.1. The burden to prove this fact that the vehicle

was overloaded was upon the insurance company. Even assuming that there were eight persons in the vehicle at the time of accident, the insurance

company cannot escape its liability as there was no evidence on record that the accident took place on account of overloading.

High Court of Himachal Pradesh has also taken the same view in a case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and others reported in

2000 ACJ 1585. Kerala High Court has also taken the same view in a case titled Parukutty v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and

other reported in 2004 ACJ 1858. Rajasthan High Court has also taken the same view in a case titled National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.

Radha Bai and others reported in 2005(3) ACJR 60. It is profitable to reproduce paras 17 and 18 of the judgment reported in 2005(3) ACJR

herein;

Thus, to say the least, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has in very categoric terms held that, carrying passengers, more than the number specified

in the permit, will not be violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted.

The defence precisely available to the insurer under Section 149(2)(C) is that the vehicle should be used for the purpose not allowed by the

permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is transport vehicle. That being the position, the judgment in Nanded Parbhani's case

(AIR 2000 SC 725) governs the present case on all the fours.

Admittedly, the insurerappellants have not led any evidence to prove that the overloading was the cause of accident. Keeping in view the ratio

laid down by the High Courts in the judgments referred to hereinabove, the appellantinsurer has failed to prove that the overloading was the cause

of accident. There is not an iota of evidence on the file which could be made basis for holding that the owner had committed breach and that

breach was the cause of accident.

The question which now needs to be adjudicated upon is whether the 'overloading' can be used as a weapon by the insurer to avoid liability?

Subclause 2 of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act referred to hereinabove is a complete answer. It provides and mandates that what are the

limited defences available. I am of the considered view that overloading is not such a breach which can be said to be a breach in terms of Section

149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It may be a breach of condition of registration certificate or route permit but it cannot be used as a weapon for

avoiding liability in terms of mandate of provisions referred to hereinabove. Himachal Pradesh High Court has in a case titled National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Reena Devi and other reported in 2006(1) ACJR 571 laid down the same test. It is profitable to reproduce para9 of the judgment

herein:

Whether carrying of passengers more than the prescribed or permitted seating capacity is a ground, which can be taken by an insurer to

absolve itself of its liability to pay has to be decided only with reference to the conditions finding a mention in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2)

of Section 149 of the Act. The legislature has very advisedly limited the grounds of defences only to such breaches of specified conditions of the

policy which the 'legislature itself has mentioned clause (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. In clause (a), there are as many as

four situations which are related to a condition excluding the use of vehicle as well as the condition excluding the driving of the vehicle by an

unauthorized person or a condition excluding liability for the injury caused or contributed by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion.

Similarly, in clause (b), the legislature has advisedly laid down and prescribed than an insurer is entitled to defend the action if the policy of

insurance is void on the ground that it was obtained by nondisclosure of a material fact or by representation of a fact which was false in any

material particular. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the overloading of Bus even though it might be a breach of a condition of the registration

certificate or the route permit, yet cannot be made the basis of a defence by an insurer because such a breach does not find any mention in either

clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. By now, through a catena of pronouncements of law by various judgments of

the Apex Court it has conclusive been established that an insurer is entitled to avoid its liability to pay only if its defence fall within the ambit of

subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act and that an insurer, otherwise then by Section 170 of the Act, cannot be permitted to traverse beyond

these limited defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act.

It is necessary to notice herein that offending vehicle was meant for carrying passengers as per the route permit. Keeping in view the pleadings

of the parties, the offending vehicle was used at the relevant point of time for carrying passengers. Thus, the offending vehicle came to be used for

the same purpose for which the permit was granted. It is not the case of the insurerappellants that the offending vehicle was used for different

purpose other than permitted by registration certificate and route permit. Thus, it cannot be said to be breach and ground for avoiding liability.

Kerala High Court in a case titled Parukutty v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2004 ACJ 1858 has taken the same view. It

is profitable to reproduce para7 of the judgment herein:

7.The second contention is regarding overloading of autorickshaw. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabeer Ali, 2000 ACJ 839 (Kerala), it

was held that mere by because the vehicle was overloaded it cannot be stated that the vehicle was used for a purpose other than the purpose for

which the permit is granted. The purpose for which the autorickshaw was registered was to carry passengers and as a taxi vehicle and mere

overloading of the vehicle will not oust the liability of the insurance company as there is no violation of section 149(2)(a)(i)(c), [See B. V. Nagaraju

v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC)]

High Court of Uttranchal has also taken the same view in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Anjana Shyam and others, reported in 2000

ACJ 1585. It is profitable to reproduce paras 12 and 13 of the judgment herein:

.................... Carrying of more passengers than the number given in the insurance policy may be irregular but is not so fundamental a breach

as to put an end to the contract of insurance and it cannot also be a defence open to the appellant insurance company to allege that the overloading

of the passengers in the illfated bus was the direct cause of the accident for which the State Government is liable to contribute the amounts of

compensation awarded by the Tribunals below. In B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), it is held that when in

terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen when traveling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have

increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have

contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Their Lordships further held that merely by lifting a person or

two, or even three, by the driver of the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach

that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though but not so fundamental in

nature so as to put an end to the contract of insurance, unless some special circumstances or factors existed which, by themselves had gone to

contribute to the causing of accident.

................. Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the defence which the appellant insurance company can raise is in

respect of the breach of specified or enumerated conditions of the insurance policy one of which being, viz., if the vehicle allowed by permit has

been used for a purpose other than the specified purpose. As noticed above, the purpose of permit of the illfated bus was to carry the passengers

and. therefore, there is no violation of the statutory provisions by the insured and as such the defence that more than 42+2 passengers specified

under the policy of insurance were carried at the time of the accident in the illfated bus is not available under section 149(2)(a) (i)(c) of the Motor

Vehicles Act to the appellant insurance company against third party risk as the vehicle was not used for the purpose not authorized by the permit.

For taking this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri

Devi, 1998 ACJ 1177 (UP) and the judgment of the Apex Court in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178(SC).

Rajesthan High Court in a case titled National Insurance Company ltd. Vs. Smt. Radha Bai and others reported in 2005(3) ACJ 60 has taken the

same view. It is profitable to reproduce para5 of the said judgment herein:

Before the learned Tribunal, the appellantinsurer contested its liability on the ground of their being breach of policy conditions, i.e. Bus was

carrying passengers beyond the capacity specified in the permit, being 40 (38+2), while more than 60 passengers are said to have been carried.

On the relevant controversy issue No.3 was framed by the learned Tribunal, and the same was decided by the learned Tribunal after considering

the evidence of Assistant Divisional Manager of the appellant, the permits being Exts. 6 and 7, and the factum of prosecution having been lodged

against the owner for offence under Section 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and it was found on the authority of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Nanded Parbhani, Z. L. B. M. V. Operator Sangh reported in 2000(1) ACC 290 that it cannot be said

that the Bus was not being used for the purpose for which permit was granted.

Apex Court has also observed in a case titled State of Maharashtra v. Nanded Parbhani, Z. L. B. M. V. Operator Sangh reported in AIR 2000

SC 725 that carrying of more passengers is not a violation and cannot be said that the vehicle came to be used for different purpose other than

permitted by the route permit and registration certificate.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the offending vehicle was used, as passenger vehicle at the relevant point of

time and, not for different use other than specified and permitted. Thus, the insurer cannot escape from the liability.

Now, coming to the third question formulated hereinabove that whether the liability of the insurer is only to the extent claim(s) of permissible

number of passengers. It means that the argument of the insurerappellants is that the risk of prescribed number of passengers mentioned in the

route permit was only covered and not beyond that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. I am of the view that this argument is

devoid of any force for the following reasons.

It was for the insurer to plead and prove the contents and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurerappellant has failed to prove that

insurance policy was only for specified number of passengers. Thus, only on this ground the argument of learned counsel for insurerappellant merits

to be turned down. However, I deem it proper to return finding on this issue as well. It is worthwhile to reproduce subsection (c) of Section 145 of

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 herein:

(c) ""liability"", wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily injury to any person, includes liability in respect thereof under Sec. 140;

The word ""any person"" is used in this provision of law. It means that risk of any passenger who is traveling in the passenger vehicle, is covered.

It is also profitable to reproduce clause (a) and (b) of subclause (1) of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, herein:

Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a

policy which is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer: and insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent

specified in subsection (2)

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his

authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a

public place;

(ii)against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public

place:

The word ""any passenger"" is also used in Section 147, referred hereinabove. This means that liability of insurer visavis passenger(s) is not

limited only to the specified and permitted seating capacity. It is for the insurer to plead and prove the terms and conditions of insurance policy.

Insurerappellant has not proved the contents and conditions of the in surance policy.

Keeping in view the mandate of Sections 145, 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that insurer

must have an insurance policy, covering the risk of death or bodily injury to any passenger, of public service vehicle. It is not mandate of the said

provisions of law that the insured has to obtain insurance policy covering the risk only of the permissible number of passengers and not beyond

that. If it will be held that liability of insurer is only to the extent of seating capacity of passengers that will be against the concept of granting of

compensation to the victims of the vehicular accident and, also defeat the purposes, aim and object of the said social legislation for which the

legislation is aimed at. Himachal Pradesh High Court has also laid down the same test in a case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. u. Reena Devi

and ors. reported in 2006(1) ACJR 60. It is profitable to reproduce para10 of the judgment herein:

In so far as the question of the policy of insurance being followed only to cover the liability with respect to thirty passengers is concerned, first of

all a bare look at Section 147(1)(b)(i) will show and demonstrate unmistakably the clear legislative intent that every policy of insurance must be a

policy which insures the insured against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle. This, read with clause (a) of

subsection (2) of Section 147 of the Act clearly underscores the paramount and imperative legislative requirement that the liability has to be

unlimited in every case and unlike the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the legislative prescription as well as legislative intent bhind the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly is to ensure that every policy of insurance is unlimited in nature and content and that it is neither restricted nor

limited in its operation. This legal position apart, as far as the facts of the present cases go, apart from the mere ipse dixit of the appellant we have

no material on record whatsoever whereby even remotely the appellant has been able to establish that the policy issued by it covered the risk of

only 30 passengers. The appellant did not produce any evidence, either documentary or oral, whereby it can be said that the appellant proved the

fact that the policy issued by it covered the limited risk with respect to 30passengers and no more.

This Court has held in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mst. Zaina and ors. reported in 2001 SLJ 242, that it cannot be held that

the liability of insurance company is limited to the extent of permissible number of passengers. It is profitable to reproduce para8 of the said

judgment herein:

Mr. Kawoosa, admits that there is no dispute whatsoever, regarding the factual aspects of the case and that he does not question the quantum

of compensation award in any of the appeals and the mode and manner of arriving at the awarded compensation(s). He further submits that the

statement of facts and narration of dates and other details are correctly reflected and figure in the impugned award. What Mr. Kawoosa

straneously contends is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to five passengers and the Driver and the vehicle was carrying double

that load when it met with the fatal accident, in which all the ten, passanger's and the Driver died. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company

is confined to the five passengers and the driver and not unlimited as held by the Tribunal. There is no special contract between the Insurance

Company and the insured to cover unlimited liability by the Company. By carrying more passengers, there has been breach of policy and therefore

the appellantInsurance Company cannot be foisted with unlimited liability. All these contentions were raised earlier before the learned Single

Bench, in earlier said appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act and therefore before the LPA Bench against the judgment of learned Single

Judge. However, these contentions were turned down by the Bench. The LPA Bench, to which I was a party, held that merely because the Taxi

car carried more passengers than permissible, would not absolve Insurance Company of liability, more so when the violation of terms of policy, in

the facts and circumstances of the case could not be inferred. It was further observed that in any case, it was no so fundamental as to allow the

Insurance Company to eschew liability altogether. The court in the context of wider scope on application of norms of meaningfully interpreting the

provision of Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, claimants were entitled to claim

compensation from the Insurance Company and that the tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation.

Having regard of the above discussion, the finding is to be returned in favour of the claimants and owner (insured) and against the

insurerappellants. Accordingly, the question is answered.

Viewed thus, the appeal is dismissed along with all connected CMP(s) and the impugned award is upheld.

Registry is directed to send down the record along with a copy of this order.