NATIONAL INSURANCE CO JABALPUR Vs. SADHELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant-respondent No.1's wife and daughter were stated to have died in a motor accident. In the claim for compensation made by the claimant-respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 was joined as the owner and the appellant was joined as the insurer of the vehicle. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tribunal, vide its order dt. 24-4-89, directed the respondent No.2 and the appellant jointly to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1 as interim compensation for the two deaths under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is being aggrieved by the said order, that the insurer-appellant has filed the present Misc. Appeal in this Court.

(2.) Now, it is not in dispute that the claimant-respondent No.1's wife and daughter died in a motor accident. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. In the said circumstances, the liability of an owner to pay interim compensation under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act being a no fault liability, no mistake could be found with the Tribunal having held the respondent No.2 liable to pay compensation under the said provision to the claimant respondent No.2.

(3.) In fact, the real question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the insurer appellant could be held jointly liable along with the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2 to pay the abovesaid amount of compensation under S.92-A of the Act to the claimant-respondent No.1. In the said connection, it is significant to note that it is not in dispute that the Insurance Policy issued by the insurer-appellant in favour of the respondent No.2 covered the liability to payment of interim compensation u/s.92-A of the Act also. What is contended on behalf of the insurer-appellant is that at the relevant time i.e. at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was being used in direct breach of conditions contained in the Insurance Policy and as such the insurer-appellant could not be held jointly liable along with the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation u/s.92A of the Act to the claimant-respondent No.1.