SARJUBAI Vs. GURUDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble the Chief Justice has ordered on a reference being made by one of us (S. K. Dubey, J.) that this case be placed before the Division Bench for the opinion of the Bench on the two questions specifically posed and for deciding the revision on merits. Questions posed are these:

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision are these. The applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the 'new Act') and claimed compensation of Rs. 3,53,000 for the injuries received by her in a motor accident caused on 3. 8. 1992 by truck No. HRP 8622 owned by non-petitioner No. 2, driven by non-petitioner No. 1 and insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , non-petitioner No. 3. After notice, all the three non-petitioners filed their written statements denying the claim. At the trial, the insurance company made a prayer to permit it to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner not only on the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149 (2) of the new Act, corresponding to Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short, the 'old Act'), but on all defences which are available to the insured against a third party as the insurance company under the contract of insurance, i. e. , the policy, had reserved the right in the policy of insurance under 'reservation clause' which reads thus:

(3.) THE petitioner/claimant objected to the said prayer and contended that no such permission can be granted as the owner and driver are defending the claim and there being no collusion, the insurance company can defend the claim only on the defences as are available under Section 96 (2) of the old Act and Section 149 (2) of the new Act.