NARCINVA V KAMAT Vs. ALFREDO ANTONIO DOE MARTINS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A monopoly successfully avoided its legally incurred liability on the wholly untenable ground. That is the scenario in these appeals. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., a nationalised company having the monopoly of general insurance is the fifth respondent in the first appeal and the second respondent in the second appeal. It would be referred to as an 'insurance company' hereinafter.

(2.) An accident occurred on Praca de Jorge Barrete Road, Margao on May 17,1976 around 10.30 A.M. in which one Sita Gomes and her sister-in-law Ida Menezes were injured. Ida succumbed to her injuries and Sita Gomes recovered. The offending vehicle was a pickup van belonging to M/s. Narcinva V. Kamat, a firm carrying on business at Margao, Goa. The vehicle was insured With the insurance company. Two petitions claiming compensation came to be filed; one by the heirs of Ida and the other by Sita. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short) held that the driver of the van was responsible for the accident as the van was being driven at the relevant time, rashly and negligently. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the heirs of Ida and Rs. 3,000/- to Sita.

(3.) In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company, appeared and contended that according to the terms of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance, the vehicle can be driven. either by a driver in the employment of the insured or with the permission of the insured by the one who holds a valid driving licence. In respect of this contention the Tribunal framed Issues Nos. 7 and 8 in both the petitions in the following terms: