BRIJ BIHARI GUPTA Vs. MANMET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals arise from the orders of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, wherein the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting compensation with respect to the death/injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident was challenged by both the insurance company and the claimants. There were a total of 11 claim petitions before the Tribunal out of which the insurance company choose to challenge the award in only three such claim petitions. The challenge was on the ground of there being no liability to indemnify, since the injured were gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and the driver was in possession and ownership of the vehicle on the strength of an agreement with the registered owner, while the policy was in the name of the registered owner. Before the Tribunal, though these contentions were taken, compensation was awarded and the registered owner, the driver alleged to be the ostensible owner and the insurance company were made jointly and severally liable.

(2.) The claimants and the insurance company filed appeals before the High Court in which the company's appeals were allowed finding the insurer absolved of its liability. In the claimant's appeals, in two cases, the compensation was enhanced, and the other appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award insofar as the compensation is concerned. The present appeals are filed by the ostensible owner who also was the driver of the vehicle, who had also unsuccessfully sought a review insofar as the liability cast on him personally, to satisfy the award; which order in review also is challenged in two appeals captioned above.

(3.) That the vehicle had a valid insurance policy in the name of the registered owner and that the driver had a valid driving license are admitted. Insurer claimed no liability to indemnify the registered owner because at the time of the accident, even according to the registered owner, by an agreement the possession and ownership of the vehicle was handed over to the appellant who was also driving the vehicle. The appellant did not transfer the registration, nor did he take out a policy in his name. It is also argued before the High Court that the injured claimants and the deceased were gratuitous passengers.