SATYA DEO Vs. RUKMANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer's liability is the bone of contention as the insurance company was let off by the M.A.C.T., but appellants' want to rope it in.

(2.) The dispute may not have arisen but for the offending tractor No. MPU 8939 and trolley changing hands. It first belongs to one Sardar Singh and was insured with respondent No. 7 from 21.9.87 to 20.9.88. It was then transferred to appellant Nos. 2 and 3, but the insurance status remained as it was. It was driven by appellant No. 1 on 13.2.1988 when it hit one labourer Gajraj Singh, who was killed in the process. His claimants {respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein) filed Claim Case No. 27 of 1988 but insurance company disclaimed liability because insurance policy was not transferred to new owners (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) and also because the driver (appellant No. 1) was not holding a valid licence. The Tribunal absolved the company, held appellants liable and awarded Rs. 85,000 to claimants along with 12 per cent interest. This was done on interpreting provisions of section 103 of old Motor Vehicles Act on appreciation of documentary evidence of appellants and because of their failure to examine the original owner Sardar Singh.

(3.) Appellants have now filed this appeal to assail the award by placing reliance on a Supreme Court judgment. They have also filed 1A No. 754 of 1998 under Order XLI, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for permission to place company's communication dated 22.3.1988 on record. Since this application did not meet any resistance on the way, it is accordingly allowed and aforesaid communication acknowledging intimation of transfer of tractor by original owner Sardar Singh is taken on record.