NATIONA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ABDUL LATHEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration is whether the insurer can be directed to pay compensation to an injured in a motor traffic accident when the insured has been found not liable for the compensation.

(2.) Abdul Latheef, the respondent No. 1, herein was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. KEF 7990. The vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2 was the driver of the bus. A lorry hit against the bus and thereby the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries. The lorry which hit against the bus could not be traced out. The injured claimed Rs. 50,000 towards compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the bus as O.P. (MV) No. 2950 of 1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The owner, driver and the insurer of the bus contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident and hence, they were not liable for the compensation. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident and as such the driver and owner of the bus were not liable to compensate the injured. But placing reliance on the decision of a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in Peter Morris Lobo v. Sonal Maganlal Shingala, 1991 ACJ 215 (Bombay), the Tribunal found that the insurer of the bus was liable for the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the total compensation to be paid to the injured at Rs. 28,653 and directed the insurance company, appellant, to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the above award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P. (MV) No. 2950 of 1990, the insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 3 in the O.P. filed this appeal.

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for insurance companyappellant was that when the Tribunal found the driver and owner of the bus not liable for compensation, the Tribunal should not have found the insurer of the above vehicle alone liable for the compensation, as the liability of the insurer was to reimburse the liability incurred by the insured. It was further submitted that the claim for compensation was based on the principles of common law that the injured should establish negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. But a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in Peter Morris Lobo v. Sonal Maganlal Shingala, 1991 ACJ 215 (Bombay), held: