Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another vs Gurcharan Singh and Others

Harbans Singh, J.—The first appeal filed by Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company) and Ranjit Singh, the insured, is directed against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 2000/- as compensation to Gurcharan Singh Respondent No. 1, for the death of his only son aged 1 1/2 years.

Respondent No. 1. along with other partners, runs the petrol pump on the road coming from Delhi to Gurgaon and running: onwards to Sona and Alwar. He has got his residential house just behind the petrol pump. A truck which was admittedly owned by Ranjit Singh to begin with and which was driven by Lai Chand driver, came to the petrol pump-for getting diesel and air. After getting diesel, the truck backed without the driver taking the precaution of directing the cleaner to be on the backside and to see if that was clear or otherwise taking the precaution himself and seeing if it was safe to do so. The small child of Gurcharan Singh was just be hind the truck and got crushed under-health. Claim was made by the father and it has been found by the Claims Tribunal:

(a) That the truck was driven by Lal Chand.

(b) that Lal Chand was negligent in backing the truck, resulting in the accident.

(c) that the truck was owned by Ranjit Singh and the alleged transfer by him in favour of Punnu Ram was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case to absolve Ranjit Singh from his liability and, as such, he being the insured, the insurance company was also liable for damages and

(d) that Rs. 2000/- would be reasonable damages.

The first two findings are not seriously challenged before me except that it was urged that the parents, in allowing such a small child to come over to the petrol pump near the road, themselves were guilty of contributory negligence and, to that extent, the damages should be reduced. As I have said above the child had his house just behind the petrol pump and it has been brought out in the cross-examination of Gurcharan Singh that the house has got a gate, but the child could escape through the gate, and if he has walked from his house to the petrol pump, I do not think it can be said that the parents were guilty of contributory negligence. As a matter of fact, this point does not seem to have been argued before the Claims Tribunal because there is no mention thereof in the detailed and well-written judgment of the Tribunal.

It was, however, vehemently urged that, a cording to the statements of Ranjit Singh and Punnu Ram, the vehicle had been sold on or before 1st of June, 1960, by Ranjit Singh to Punnu Ram for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-, and in view of this transfer, the insurance policy with the company lapsed and, therefore, Ranjit Singh, who had transferred the vehicle to Punnu Ram, was not liable, and, in any case, the policy not being in force, the company was not liable to indemnify Ranjit Singh. The learned Counsel referred to a number of rulings to the effect that if there is transfer of the vehicle the insurance company would not be liable under the policy. It is not necessary to examine these ruling for the simple reason that the circumstances in the present case show that there was, in fact, no actual transfer of ownership of the vehicle. According to Ranjit Singh and Punnu Ram, money was passed but the arrangement arrived at between the two was such as clearly indicated that the intention of the parties was that the ownership in the vehicle was not to pass to Punnu Ram, and Ranjit Singh kept full control over the vehicle although the income derived from the vehicle was utilized by Punnu Ram Ranjit Singh who would be interested in helping the insurance company, as R.W. 2 stated as follows:

I purchased the offending truck PNR 1733 as new in 1958 I sold the same on i -6-1960 to Punnu Ram I produce stamped agreement (seen and returned), copy is Exhibit R.W. 1/1. The permit was in my name and Punnu Ram was to use the truck. I had not received any money for the loan of the permit for two months to Punnu Ram. He returned the permit to me after 9/10 months. The driver of the truck was Lal Chand.

In Cross-examination, he staled as follows:

When I give the permit I had imposed the condition to Punnu Ram that he would have to keep Lal Chand as driver of Truck. PNR 1733 till the permit was returned. Punnu Ram had agreed to pay me Rs. 200/- per manse for the use of my permit and I was to pay to the driver and for the repair of the truck out of that.

Punnu Ram as R.W. 3, mentioned as follows:

Lal Chand driver was an employee of Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh used to pay salary. The permit of the truck was owned by Ranjit Singh. I had agreed to pay to Ranjit Singh Rs. 200/- for the use of the permit and the vehicle. Ranjit Singh was to pay out of that amount of Rs. 200/-the salary of the driver, rent of the permit and minor repairs of the truck. The control of the driver was with Ranjit Singh. I had no power to change the driver or re-move him so long as I was to use the permit of S. Ranjit Singh.

Thus, the story given by Punnu Ram and Ranjit Singh is quite consistent. Money had passed but Punnu Ram had no permit. Ranjit Singh allowed him the use of the permit but in lieu of that he kept control over the vehicle till such ;time as his permit was returned. Not only was the driver to be his but he was to pay the driver. He alone had the power to change him. and not only this, he was also to pay for minor repairs. 11 is obvious from the above that although the consideration had passed from the buyer and the custody of the vehicle was also with him, yet it was agreed between the parties that the control of the vehicle shall remain with the seller, and the only inference that can be drawn from this is that the property in the vehicle was not to pass to the purchaser till such time as the permit was returned. Both of them agree that for the first one month Rs. 200/- were paid direct to Ranjit Singh and that thereafter, in view of the illness of Ranjit Singh and under the instructions of Ranjit Singh, the aforesaid amount was paid to Lal Chand driver. This payment to Lal Chand driver must be deemed to be payment for and on behalf of Ranjit Singh, Consequently payment either to Lal Chand or to Ranjit Singh would not make any difference. In view of the above, therefore, I have no hesitation that in these peculiar circumstances, the legal ownership still continued to vest in Ranjit Singh and the question of the lapse of the policy, therefore, does not arise.

Admittedly, Lal Chand was a driver of Ranjit Singh and under his control. Ranjit Singh is responsible due to the vicarious liability for the tort of his driver, and the company under the insurance policy is bound to indemnify him for this. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, directing that the compensation awarded shall be payable by Ranjit Singh and the insurance company is well founded. In view of the fact that Punnu Ram was not the legal owner, he is not liable. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal making him also liable is hereby set aside.

With regard to the quantum of compensation, it was urged that there is no clear finding that there was any reasonable expectation of the son, when grown up, making any monetary contribution to his father. By the very nature of things certain matters have to be dealt with on probabilities and I do not think the Tribunal was wrong in assuming that the only son of the father was normally expected to help his father when he was able to do so The sum of Rs. 2000/- awarded is perfectly reasonable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. The result is that but for the minor modification, as given above, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed, and this appeal is dismissed with costs.