K K MARTHUTHAPPAN Vs. KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an accident involving the truck belonging to the appellant, two persons were killed whose dependants/heirs filed M.C.O.P. Nos. 70/87 and 25/88 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore (Principal Subordinate Judge) claiming compensation respectively in a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

(2.) M.C.O.P. No. 70/87 was filed by the dependants of one Ayyapparaj and M.C.O.P. No. 25/88 was filed by the dependants of one Palanisamy. C.M.A. No. 737/93 has been filed against M.C.O.P. No. 70/87 and C.M.A. No. 738/93 against M.C.O.P. No. 25/88. The vehicle involved was TNL 4556. The date of the accident was 14.4.1986. The Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that there was breach of terms of the policy by carrying 50 passengers in a goods vehicle.

(3.) THE ratio in Skandia Insurance Company's case does not apply to the facts of the present case. Equally, the decision in Sohanlal Passi's case also will not apply to the facts of the present case. Sohanlal Passi was a case of a bus, the driver allowed the cleaner/conductor of the bus, also an employee of the appellant to drive it. THEn the accident took place with a scooter, resulting in the death of the scooterist. It was held by the Supreme Court that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the victim since the bus was nevertheless being driven for the business of the appellant and not for personal pursuit of the employee and it was also found that the negligent act was in the course of employment. THE crucial test was held to be whether the initial act of the employee was expressly authorised and lawful. THE Supreme Court further held that a case where the owner of the bus insured authorised his duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle but the driver allowed the cleaner/conductor of the bus to drive when the accident took place, the defence of breach of the condition under S. 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not available to the insurer and the insurer was liable under Section 96 (1). It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the rights of the legal representative of the victim should not be defeated on technical ground of mere contravention of the condition prescribed under Section 96 (2) (b)(ii) irrespective of the fact that the insured had not allowed the vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed person but had instead taken precautions to comply with the condition by appointing a licensed driver. THE defence under Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) was therefore not available to the insurer. THE Supreme Court also observed that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. THE procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known.