ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BHALCHANDRA VISHNU KELKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the insurer of a bus for transporting passengers, bearing No. GDT 2157. On 11.8.1984, at about 18 hours at Sirsaim, the mother of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by name Laxmi Vishnu Kelkar met with an accident. It appears that she was on the pillion seat of a scooter bearing No. GDG 4510 driven by her son, Ajit V. Kelkar, who is the respondent No. 2, which was involved in that accident. The basis of filing claim petition by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that on the relevant date the bus GDT 2157 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that way dashed the scooter, with the result Laxmi fell down resulting in her death. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in claim petition No. 96 of 1984. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, however, by the impugned award dated 29.2.1988, awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - accrued with interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. A further order was made that the compensation amount of Rs. 7,500/ - awarded to the original claimants under Section 92 -A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is liable to be adjusted against the compensation of Rs. 25,000/ -; besides, a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - was awarded by way of costs.

(2.) THE appellant as insurer resisted the claim petition, firstly, on the ground that right from several years before the date of the accident the concerned bus was being insured by its owner, Pritabai Mahadev Dantye and despite her death on 16.9.1980, from time to time the insurance policy was renewed, with the result that on the date of the accident, viz., 11.8.1984, the policy was in the name of the deceased Pritabai. The second defence was that there could not be any valid contract between an insurer and a deceased insured and, therefore, whatever policy obtained in the name of the deceased Pritabai was on the misrepresentation that Pritabai was living and, therefore, on both these defences it was urged that no liability can be foisted on the insurer under the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. - -