UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD. Vs. AVTAR SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Award dated 30.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, vide which a sum of Rs.8,40,000/ - was awarded to the claimants along with interest on account of the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased in a motor vehicular accident and appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 23.7.1988, Kuljit Singh Sachdev (deceased) was travelling in a Maruti Gypsy, bearing Registration No. DDA -6231, being driven by Raj Pal Singh respondent (driver). The said vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased expired. The claimants, claiming themselves to be the widow, daughter and minor son of Kuljit Singh deceased filed the claim petition under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the grant of Rs.30,00,000/ -as compensation for the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased in the said accident. As per the claimants, Raj Pal Singh driver was driving the said vehicle rashly, negligently and at a fast speed and could not control the vehicle, as a result of which it fell into Pangi Nallah, resulting in the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased. The said claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, impleading Raj Pal Singh driver as respondent No.1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the said vehicle) as respondent No.2, while Citi Bank, New Delhi was impleaded as respondent No.3. In column No. 15 it was alleged that the vehicle in question was owned by the deceased i.e. Kuljit Singh Sachdev. It was also added that respondent No. 3 (Citi Bank) was also "insured/owner", whereas in column No. 16 of the claim petition it was alleged that respondent No.2 was the insurer of the said vehicle. Furthermore, Mrs. Inderjit Kaur deceased was impleaded as respondent No.4, being one of the legal representative of the deceased.

(3.) Respondent No.1 Raj Pal Singh, driver filed the written statement, admitting the claim of the claimants and alleging therein that liability for payment of compensation was of the insurer respondent No.2, who had to make the payment, since the vehicle was comprehensively insured. However, it was denied that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently or that the accident took place due to his fault. In the separate written reply filed by Insurance Company respondent No.2, various defences as are available were taken and it was alleged that there was no privity of contract between the claimants and the answering respondent and as such the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation from the answering respondent. It was alleged that infact the deceased, being the owner of the offending vehicle, was not covered under the insurance policy. It was alleged that the replying respondent was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and accordingly it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. No written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Citi Bank.