ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer namely, Oriental Insurance Company through the medium of this appeal has challenged the award dated 4.2.94 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT Rajouri whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs. 3, 23,100/ - was awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 9 with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. The Insurer has challenged the award on the following grounds: -

(2.) HEARD the arguments.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant has contended that in para -9 of the claim petition, the respondents claimants herein had shown respondent -10 as owner and respondent -ll as driver respectively of the offending vehicle. It was also stated that identity of respondent No. 11 was still to be verified. The appellant herein has replied in the written statement that the offending vehicle stood insured with it in the name of Balwant Singh and not in the name of respondent -10 herein (Harjeet Singh). In terms of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act the insurer has to indemnify only a person who is insured by the policy and in the instant case respondent -10 who is shown as owner of the offending vehicle was not insured by the policy so the insurer was not liable to indemnify him. To buttress his contention learned counsel has cited the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors. (1998 ACJ 121) as well as the case of Sudhakaran vs. Francis & Ors (1997 ACJ 144). The counsel appearing for respondents has contended that liability to indemnify the insured stands fastened upon the appellant in view of the deeming provisions of section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act.