ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. PUSHPA NANAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Motor Accident Claim Petition No.138 of 2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal, has passed an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 3032011 holding the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle Maroti Van No.MH28/C1464, along with the appellantThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.16,32,408/ inclusive of nofault liability and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 562006, till its realization. It is the Insurance Company, which is before this Court challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE incident in question occurred on 1732006 near Mangrul Shiwar on PandharkawadaWani Road at 12.15 p.m. The vehicle in question, i.e. Maruti Van No.MH28/C1464, dashed a horse, which was crossing the road; as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased Nanaji Punaji Uike was the occupant in the vehicle and died on the spot as a result of severe injuries. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. The defences raised by the Insurance Company that the risk of the deceased, who was the occupant of the vehicle, was not covered by the insurance policy; that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident; that the vehicle was being driven by illegally carrying the farepaying passengers in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, are rejected. Another defence raised was that the respondent No.8 Murlidhar Madhaorao Kolhe was the registered owner of the vehicle and the contract of insurance was with him. He had sold the vehicle on 3012006, i.e. prior to the accident to the respondent No.7 Amin Mehandibhai Lakhani, and hence he cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and consequently, the appellantInsurance Company is not liable to reimburse the compensation. This defence is also rejected.

(3.) THE only points urged by Shri Godbole, the learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company, are that the insurance policy in question did not cover the risk of the passengers in the vehicle. The vehicle in question was purchased by the respondent No. 7 Amin Mehandibhai Lakhani on 3012006, though the registration of the vehicle and the insurance were in the name of the original owner, the respondent No.8 Murlidhar Madhaorao Kolhe. On the date of the accident, i.e. on 1732006, the respondent No.7 Amin Lakhani was the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that unless the policy was assigned or transferred in the name of the respondent No.7 Amin Lakhani, the appellantInsurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, the points for determination in this appeal is as under :