NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ROHIT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award dated 3.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, whereby the claimant-respondent No.1 was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,62,358.00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of the disability suffered by him, is under challenge. It was further ordered that Insurance company would make the payment, however, it would be at liberty to recover the same from Sukhwinder Singh respondent No.2, who had allegedly stolen the vehicle.

(2.) THE sole question raised in this appeal is: "Whether the insurance company could be held liable under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') without holding the owner of the vehicle as liable?" Apparently, the vehicle had been stolen without the knowledge of the owner by Sukhwinder Singh-respondent No.1 and the accident did not take place on account of the negligence of the person employed or deputed by the owner, as per Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of of the Act. It is also apparent that there was no violation of the conditions of the policy of insurance and the theft of the vehicle by Sukhwinder Singh-respondent No.2 was also beyond the control of the owner. The vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident. The owner himself becomes sufferer due to the theft. The aim and object of getting the vehicle insured is to the liability by the Insurance Company in such exigencies if the vehicle is insured for theft. Thus, the argument that the owner was responsible for the liability, if any, on account of the accident of the vehicle, which was stolen, is of no consequence.

(3.) SIMILAR view was taken by this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Lalita and others FAO No. 1024 of 2009. Thus, there are no grounds to hold that the owner must be held liable alongwith the the insurance company.