Smt. Lata Jain vs Sham Lal and Others

Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.

The contention of the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the liability for payment of the amount of Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act rested upon the Insurance Company and not upon the owner of the vehicle. In the present case the Tribunal has passed an interim Award u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, and they have been held to the jointly and severally liable for payment of the aforesaid amount. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under Sub-section (1) of Section 96 the Insurance Company has to make payment of the amount of Award to the person entitled to the benefit under the said Award. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Daya Ram and Ors. 1986 RLR 72 following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beasa Devi and Others, The decision in Kanhaiya Lal''s case 1986 RLR 72 has simply followed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beasa Devi and Others, and as no reasons have been given the decision in Kanhaiya Lal''s case 1986 RLR 72 cannot be considered as a binding precedent. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beasa Devi and Others, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that if an award is against the insured holding him liable to pay certain amount as compensation with regard to the claim arising out of an accident, with his motor vehicle, then the liability of the insurer is absolute and the insurer cannot question whether the amount of Award was as a result of fault liability or otherwise. On the above premise it was further held that the insurer was liable to satisfy the compensation claim arising out of the accident with the insured vehicle to the extent of the amount assured under the policy.

Section 92-A, which has been newly added provide for liability for payment of compensation on the principle of no fault and runs as under:

92-A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owner of the vehicle shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provision of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that Sub-section in respect of the permanant disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees.

Thus, reading provisions of Section 92-A together with the provisions of Sections 85 to 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act there can be no doubt that the owner of the vehicle is liable for payment of compensation even u/s 92-A and as such the Award shall have to be passed, both against the owner and if the Insurance Company is party to the proceedings, then against the owner and the Insurance Company jointly. However, liability to satisfy the compensation claim to the extent of the sum assured by the insurance policy is fastened upon the insurer in view of the provisions of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, if it is admitted by the owner of the vehicle that his vehicle was involved in the accident or from the material adduced on the record the Tribunal positively holds that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and the Tribunal prima facie comes to the conclusion that the vehicle was insured then without enquiring into the correctness of other objections that may be raised by the insurance company the Tribunal would be justified to pass an Award u/s 92A against the insured and the insurer and requires the insurance company to make payment of the amount to the claimants to the extent of the amount assured of the insurance policy. The objections that may be raised either by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle would be required into after the interim Award u/s 92A is passed. It may be pointed out that Section 92B provides that the interim Award passed u/s 92A would be in addition to the other claim of compensation in respect of the death for permanent disablement of any person as a result of the accident. In view of the provisions contained in Section 92A, 92B, and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act and upon correct reading of the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beasa Devi and Others, the interim Award passed u/s 92A by the Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle and the insurer is perfectly a legal Award. However, it would be open to the appellant to draw the attention of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the fact that the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the interim Award passed by it u/s 92A to the extent of the amount assured under the policy of Insurance.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the observations made above.