SH SUKHRAJ SINGH @ RAJU Vs. SUKHJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim for compensation was at the instance of the representatives of the deceased policeman, who was run over by the car that belonged to respondents 2 and 3 and driven by the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent was the Insurance Company and the 5th respondent was one of the representatives of the deceased, who was arrayed on the respondents' side.

(2.) The contention of the claimants was that when the deceased, who was a constable, was on duty, he attempted to stop the vehicle at the naka placed in the village of Jamarai on suspicion. The driver did not stop the vehicle while going one way and on its return again when the vehicle was stopped at 11 PM on the intervening night of 24/25.09.2002, the driver with a criminal intention to kill the deceased drove over him without stopping. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. All the respondents except the driver remained ex parte. The Tribunal passed the award, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi Versus New India Assurance Company Limited,2000 2 PLR 768 and held that the driver and the owner were liable to satisfy the claim for compensation which was fixed at Rs.9,83,600/-. The Insurance Company had been for some reason exonerated and the appeal has been filed by the driver, who is now undergoing imprisonment.

(3.) It is not known whether the trial is completed and whether the conviction has been rendered on the charges levied against the driver for offence under Section 302 IPC. The owners of the car have not preferred the appeal. If the vehicle had been used as a weapon to cause death while deliberately running over a third party such as the pedestrian, it will be difficult to sustain a claim only before the Tribunal. The liability under an insurance cover itself is available only for a death or bodily injury arising out of the use of the vehicle in a manner that would give rise to a civil action for damages. An act complained of must be a tortious act. The law of vicarious liability for the act of a driver on the owner itself arises only in the realm of torts. Or persons, who are not immediately connected with the act, could also be liable only if they share a common intention and the act of one person could be attributed also to other persons by invoking either the principle of common intention referred to under Section 34 IPC or as an action for abetment under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code. In either case, the appropriate remedy could never be under the Motor Vehicles Act.