LAWS(HPH)-1993-7-2

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MILKHI RAM

Decided On July 27, 1993
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
V/S
MILKHI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appeals arise out of judgment of learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the appeals of the Insurance Company against the common award made on 8/11/1985, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti districts at Mandi.

(2.) On 8/12/1983, at about 5.45 p.m. truck bearing registration number HPM 1353, owned by respondent Bharat Construction Company and driven by driver Hardev Singh, while carrying some of the employees of the company from Seuali Khud, the place of the work of the company to Lunapani, its sub-station, met with an accident. Some of the employees being carried in the vehicle died on the spot, as a result of the injuries received by them and some of them received injuries. The legal representatives of four of such employees, who died as a result of the accident filed four separate claim petitions, claiming compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant-company, with whom the vehicle in question had been got insured by the owner was also impleaded as one of the respondents in the claim petitions. The claim petitions were resisted by the owner, driver and the insurance company.

(3.) The owner, in its reply, admitted the deceased to be in its employment and also admitted the accident. It was also admitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased, being its employees were being taken in the vehicle in question from the place of its work to Lunapani, its sub-station. It was, however, denied that the accident occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the driver. The driver also denied any rashness and negligence on his part, while driving the vehicle. The insurance company took up a stand that the vehicle in question was being driven without any valid permit by an unauthorised and unlicensed person and the occupants were unauthorisedly sitting in the vehicle, which was not a passenger vehicle. It denied its liability to compensate the claimants.