NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the above appeal and the cross-objections which have been preferred against award/judgment dated 18. 5. 1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short 'the Tribunal')in M. A. Case No. 37 of 11. 9. 1981. The appellant insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured and owned by one Gundu Ram, has challenged its liability to satisfy the impugned award, whereas the claimants have filed the cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) ON 26. 3. 1981, Mohinderjit Singh, the minor son of Tarlochan Singh sustained injuries when he was knocked down by truck bearing No. PUV 5281 being driven by Kacharan Singh, its driver, rashly and negligently. His left leg had to be amputated on that account as the same was crushed in the accident.

(3.) ON the claim petition being filed through his father, the injured-claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of realization. The appellant was directed to satisfy the award. A perusal of the record reveals that the factum of accident had not been disputed by the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance company has questioned its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was owned by Gundu Ram, at the time of issuance of insurance policy, but he had subsequently sold the same to Ram singh. However, the registration of the offending vehicle continued in the name of Gundu Ram. It was pleaded that said gundu Ram was never impleaded as party in the claim petition and only Ram Singh, the subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle was made a respondent. It was further pleaded that since Gundu Ram, the owner of the offending vehicle, who had got insured the same in the first instance, was never a party to the proceedings and the award not having been passed against the insured person, the appellant was not bound to pay compensation to the injured person.