INDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY NOW MERGED IN THE UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. VIJAYA RAMULU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the 4th Respondent in O.P. No. 88 of 1972 against the order of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Guntur, awarding a decree in a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - payable with interest at 6% per annum towards compensation.

(2.) THE lorry APK 1143 driven by the 3rd Respondent met with an accident resulting in instantaneous death of Vijaya Anjamma. The deceased was the wife of the 1st Respondent Petitioner and mother of Petitioners 2 to 5 and the daughter of the 6th Petitioner. The 1st and 2nd Respondents are stated to be the owners of the lorry and the 3rd Respondent is said to be its driver and the 4th Respondent is the insurance company with which the said lorry was insured. In column No. 14 of the performa petition filed for claiming the compensation, the 1st Respondent was described as the 'C' Certificate, holder and the 2nd Respondent as the present owner of the said vehicle. The deceased was working as a grading cooli in the National Tobacco company and was earning Rs. 5/ - to 6/ - daily. The Petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - against all the Respondents.

(3.) THE insurance company, the 4th Respondent also denied that the lorry was driven rashly and negligently and averred that the deceased got confused and suddenly ran across the road and struck against the vehicle. The claim was stated to be arbitrary and out of all proportion to the earning capacity and capability of the deceased. The insurance company took a specific plea that the 2nd Respondent was the owner of the lorry APK 1143 on the date of the accident and that he had not insured the vehicle with the 4th Respondent -company. The 1st Respondent, in whose name the vehicle was insured with the 4th Respondent company, had no insurable interest on the date of the accident as he had parted with the ownership of the vehicle prior to that date. The insurance policy was not transferred to the 2nd Respondent, nor was the 3rd Respondent who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident the employee of the 1st Respondent in whose name the insurance policy was taken. Thus both the 1st and 4th Respondents disclaimed all liability for meeting the claim of the Petitioners in respect of the said accident. In the additional written statement filed by the 4th Respondent, a further plea was taken that the driver was not duly licensed at the time of the accident to drive a heavy vehicle like the lorry APK 1143 and as such the insurance company was absolved from all liability.