AJIT SINGH Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manohar Lal deceased was run over by truck No. HRK-1287 allegedly driven by Sham Lal, cleaner of the truck and the driver sitting by his side. Claim preferred for compensation by deceased's widow, mother and minor son was negatived by the Tribunal against the owner of the truck Ajit Singh and the insurance company. The claim to the tune of Rupees one lac was, however, allowed against Sham Lal cleaner. Sham La1 preferred an appeal to this Court to which he impleaded as respondents Ajit Singh and the insurance company as well. Claimants neither filed any appeal nor preferred cross-objection to the appeal filed by Sham Lal.

(2.) The learned single Judge disagreed with the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the liability of the owner Ajit Singh The learned Judge also held that the insurer was liable to indemnify Ajit Singh owner of the vehicle. The learned single Judge then invoking the provision of order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. held cleaner Sham Lal, owner Ajit Singh and the insurance company jointly liab1e in pay the compensation amount which he assessed at Rs. 64,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6 percent from the date of the claim application with a rider that in view of Section 96, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the liability of the insurer i. e., insurance company would be limited to Rs. 50,000/- only. Aggrieved by the judgment, owner Ajit Singh and insurance company have preferred two separate appeals; L. P. A. No. 374 of 1980 by Ajit Singh and L. P. A. No. 317 of 1980 by the insurance company which we propose to decide by a common judgment.

(3.) In assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge the two appellants, the insured (the. owner of the truck) and the insurer i. e., insurance company, partly make a common cause in so tar as their opposition to the finding that the owner of the truck was liable for the act of the cleaner and thus appellate Court could saddle the said owner and the insurance company with joint liability along with the cleaner by invoking the provision of Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., is concerned. Failure of their common attack led to the parting of company, while insured claimed that the insurance company was liable to indemnify him regarding the entire amount awarded by the learned single Judge, the insurance company sought to absolve itself of all liability on two grounds; (i) that the original owner of the vehicle had transferred the vehicle and the insurance policy had lapsed, and (ii) that the vehicle at the time of the accident was driven by a person who was not in possession of a driving license.