ALMORA MAGNESITE LIMITED Vs. DEOKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These first appeals from orders are directed against the interim award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 25,000 as interim compensation to the heirs and le'gal representatives of the victims in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order awarding the interim compensation is not warranted according to law. He submitted that the vehicle in which the victims were travelling was insured and the court below has wrongly awarded the amounts to be paid by the appellant-company to the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the sole liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the court below without considering this aspect in a proper perspective repelled the submission of the appellant.

(2.) In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Beasa Devi [1985] ACJ 1 ; AIR 1985 P & H 96 ; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 643. The arguments of the appellants in the said case is that the liability for payment of compensation under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, was solely on the insurance company provided it is proved that the vehicle in question by which the accident took place was insured. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court repelled this submission and held that the insurance company is also liable as the owner of the vehicle. This does not caste exclusive liability on the insurance company. The Division Bench was of the view that the provisions of Section 92A of the Act were beneficial legislation and the interpretation of the law should be made keeping in view the intention of the legislation while interpreting the said provision. The other case relied on by learned counsel for the appellant is [1986] ACJ 120 ; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 298 (AP) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Chotinabee) whose proposition of law has been stated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which does not render any assistance in this case. The decision in G. Prabhakar v. Thummanapalli Brahmaih [1986] ACJ 196 ; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 710 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the number of case law considered in the said judgment is not of any assistance to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. In none of the rulings has it been said that the liability is exclusively on the insurance company.

(3.) The learned appellant cited two decisions of a single judge of our court in Sant Ram v. Surya Pal [1986] ACJ 202 ; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 87 which is a case under Section 92A of the 1939 Act. The court has considered the no-fault liability in a case of injury and interim award was awarded in that case. This court, by a single judge decision, held that, while awarding interim compensation, it was necessary for the court to have recorded some finding in respect of the nature of injury, whether it was a permanent disability requiring minimum payment of interim compensation. Thus, this case is also of no assistance to the decision of the present appeal as all these are cases of death in the accident.