ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHOBHA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Munger, is the Appellant in this miscellaneous appeal, which arises out of the judgment and award, dated 30.6.95 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 32 of 1994, whereby the Appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as 'no fault' compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The widow and her minor sons have filed a petition for compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Act. It is alleged that the deceased along with his brother was coming from his village on a motor cycle bearing Registration No. B.R. 8-4390 and when they reached near village Paharpur, a truck came from opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, the brother of the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle fell down and became unconscious and the deceased brother, who was a pillion rider was dashed, fell down and was crushed under the wheel of the Truck. The truck was being driven in a high speed, and, as such, the details of the truck could not be noted by the claimants or any person, who was present at the time of accident.

(2.) However, a first information report was lodged being Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 184 of 1994. In absence of the details of the truck, a petition was filed by the claimants along with a copy of the first information report stating therein that the motor cycle, in question, was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and, as such, the claimants are entitled to be compensated under 'no fault liability', in terms of Section 140 of the Act. The owner of the motor cycle, namely, the brother of the deceased as well as the Insurance Company appeared and filed their respective written statements. The owner of the motor cycle has supported the case of the claimants. The Insurance Company has not denied the statement to the effect that the motor cycle, in question, was insured with the Appellant, Insurance Company. However, it is alleged that since the owner of the truck has not been made a party and in his absence, the claim is not maintainable. The Insurance Company has further alleged that according to the case of the claimants themselves, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck itself, and, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner of the motor cycle though the same is insured with the Appellant. The court, on consideration of the materials on record including the submissions raised on behalf of the parties, has rejected the defence of the Insurance and directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under 'no fault liability' clause under Section 140 of the Act. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal by the Insurance Company.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company, has assailed the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that on the statement of the claimants themselves, the Appellant is not liable to pay the compensation, inasmuch as, according to the claimants, the instant accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and on the same basis, the criminal case, namely, Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 184/84 was also registered. The Appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation in absence of the owner of the truck. It is admitted position that neither the driver nor the owner of the truck nor the registration number of the truck has been mentioned in the claim petition. It is thus submitted by Mr. Ajay Kumar that, in any view of the matter, the deceased was a pillion rider and since no extra premium was being paid by the owner of the motor cycle, the risk for payment of such compensation is not covered in terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to examine Section 140 of the Act itself. Section 140 of the Act envisages payment of compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability'. It is better to quote Section 140 of the Act, which reads as follows-