BHAGWAN DASS Vs. KASTURI LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the night between 15th and 16th February, 1963, truck No. PNE 4834 was involved in a collision with a bullock cart which was being driven by Bhagwan Dass. The truck being driven by Kasturi Lal its owner was Gopal Dass. The truck was said to be insured with Northern India Motor Insurance Company Ltd. As a result of the collision, Bhagwan Dass suffered injuries and the bullocks died. Consequently, Bhagwan Dass filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi claiming an award for compensation on account of damages and injuries suffered as a result of the collision. A sum of Rs. 30,000/ - was claimed in all. In these proceedings, Kasturi Lal, Gopal Dass and M/s. Northern India Motor Insurance Company Ltd, were Respondents as the truck driver, the truck owner and the Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured, respectively. The collision was admitted by the first two Respondents. and the only question for determination was whether the accident was caused by the rash or negligent driving of Kasturi Lal. The insurance company Respondent No. 3 claimed that the vehicle was not insured with it. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 30th April, 1966, held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PNE 4838 which was being driven by Kasturi Lal; it was also held that there was no culpable negligence by Bhagwan Dass, the driver of the bullock -cart which was involved in the accident. On this basis, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,950/ - as compensation to the Petitioner Bhagwan Dass. The quantification of the damages has been detailed in the judgment and I need not refer to the same as the same is not seriously in challenge in this appeal. The quantification has been made under various headings which have been referred to by learned Counsel for the Appellant, but the approximation made cannot be set aside except on a retrial which is a procedure the Appellant wants to avoid. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. This is the part of the judgment to which the Petitioner Bhagwan Dass objects, and consequently he has appealed to this Court.

(2.) THE notices of this appeal were served on the Respondents sometime ago. The first Respondent was served by affixation and has not put in appearance. The other two Respondents have also not put in appearances inspite of service. Registered actual date notices were sent to the three Respondents. The notice addressed to the first Respondent has come back unserved. It is not necessary to issue any further notice to that part because in any case he was served by affixation in the first place and secondly, no relief is prayed for by the Appellant against that Respondent. As far as the other two Respondents are concerned, actual date notices have been sent to them by registered post, but they have not put in appearance. No further relief is claimed against the first two Respondents beyond what was granted by the Tribunal itself. The only party interested in this appeal is the third Respondent, M/s. Northern India Motor Insurance Company Ltd. That Company has not put in appearance inspite of service. The question of law which has been raised by Mr. G.R. Chopra in support of the Appellant's case is of some importance, but, unfortunately I have to deal with the appeal ex -parte I now proceed to deal with the question raised before me.

(3.) IT is to be noted that Chapter 8 of the Act, deals with the insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. This part of the enactment is intended to safeguard the rights of third parties who may be involved in motor vehicle accidents. The provisions of Section 94, particularly Sub -section (1), are intended to prevent any vehicle being driven on the road without a third party risk insurance. Thus, if a motor vehicle is involved in an accident with some person, who claims damages, it is the Insurance Company which is made liable by forcing the vehicle's owner to get the vehicle insured before he can legally drive the same on the road. The relevant part of this section reads -