ASSURANCE CO Vs. S RAMULANIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lorry bearing No. APT 5045 belongs to Mohd. Jahangir, 1st Respondent in the O. P. The 2nd respondent Mogili Narsimlu drove the vehicle on the date of the accident i.e. on 9-6-1981. The lorry was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ex. B-1 is the policy. The lorry was placed by the owner at the disposal of the District Collector for the use in the Panchayat Samithi elections. The Government delegated to the respective District Collectors the powers vested in it under Sec:.. 63-B, 6S-D and 68-E of the A. P. Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1950, by a notification. The notification was issued with G. O. Ms. No. 328 Panchayat Raj (Election IV) Department dated 17-5-1981, true copy of which is filed as Ex. B-2. The Government in its G. O. Ms. No. 337, Punchayat Raj (Election IV) Department dated 20-5-1981, true copy of which is filed as Ex. B-3, issued instructions for payment of hire charges for the motor vehicles requisitioned and batta charges to the drivers, conductors and cleaners of the vehicles. The Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj, by letter dated 26-5-1981, true copy of which is filed as Ex. B-4, asked the Transport authorities in the district to help the Collectors in requisitioning the required number of vehicles. The lorry in question was requisitioned by the Collector for election purposes under the delegated authority and the vehicle was allotted for transport of election personnel. One constable died and some others received injuries while they were on election duty, travelling in the vehicle. The learned Judge found that the claimants arc entitled for compensation. In the O. Ps the Government was not made a party. The Insurance Co. was made liable to pay the amount. It is against that, the Insurance Co, filed the appeals.

(2.) The contention of the Insurance Co, is that there is a requisition by the Government and it is in contravention of Clause (9) of Ex. B-1 which is as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents herein relied upon M.S.Ramachandra Pillai vs. V.K.R. Kumarappa Chettiar and Ors. In that case, the 3rd defendant who is the owner of the lorry lent the lorry and the driver to the 2nd defendant to one Subrahmanya Chettiar for marriage purpose and at the time of the accident, the 2nd defendant "continued to be the servant of the 3rd defendant and the person who hired the lorry had no control over the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant, the owner of the lorry, was also held liable for the damages caused. In United India Fire and General Insurance Co. vs. Maddali Susheela and others, also it was held that the insurer continues to be liable notwithstanding the clause providing for excepting the insurer from liability in respect of an accident during the period of requisition.