RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel.

(2.) THIS appeal is under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 4.5.1991 in Claim Case No. 19 of 1983. The claim was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 arising out of an accident which took place on 12.7.1983 on the highway between Bhilwara and Ajmer within the municipal limits of Bhilwara, which resulted in death of Radheshyam, whose dependents six in number were the claimants who included the widow of the deceased,three dependent children and both parents. Parents have died since the pendency of this case. A claim for a sum of Rs. 7,15,000 was lodged against the present appellant, the insurer United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras with whom the vehicle involved in the accident has been insured, and Mathuralal, alleged to be the Driver of the vehicle. In the application it has been stated that the claimants do not know who the driver was but had said that the respondent No. 3 has been named on the basis of information available from the investigation in the criminal case arising out of the accident in which the respondent No. 3 was found to be driving the vehicle. All the respondents had filed separate reply to the claim of the claimants. Apart from denying the claim, the present appellant Rameshwarlal has denied that the vehicle was driven by respondent No. 3 Mathuralal but according to him the vehicle was being driven by the employee of the respondent Shri Ratan Singh who held a valid license to drive and duly authorised by the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Co. in its reply has admitted the averments of the application about the ownership of the vehicle vesting in Rameshwarlal and Mathuralal being the driver of the vehicle andit was asserted that he was driving the vehicle without licence and he was not employee of the owner of the vehicle. Mathuralal in his reply denied having any connection with the accident. He denied to be the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident or that he was in the employment of the owner of the vehicle at any time. The claims Tribunal ultimately awarded the applicants a sum of Rs. 3,45,600 as compensation and Rs. 800 as cost of the litigation. It also awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application to the date of realisation in Rs. 3,45,600. However, finding that the vehicle was being driven by Mathuralal respondent No. 3 and not by Ratan Singh or Vikram Singh who was claimed to be authorised by Ratan Singh on the date of accident and held that since the vehicle was driven by unauthorised person not in the employment of the owner of the vehicle, there was no liability of the Insurance Co. under the terms of policy to indemnify the insured. Thus, the award was passed only against owner, the appellant and the driver of the vehicle.

(3.) IN the first instance it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant has failed to prove that the vehicle was driven by Ratan Singh or Vikram Singh is not well founded inasmuch as no evidence has been led to controvert the evidence led either by the claimants or the insurance company to establish that, Mathuralal, the unauthorised person was driving the vehicle and the finding of the tribunal is solely based on the finding given in the criminal case against Mathuralal by treating it to be a substantive piece of evidence in this case. Alternatively, it has also been urged that the plea of the appellant has been that vehicle has been given to Ratan Singh, an employee, who was duly authorised licensee for driving on the fateful day who was in his employment and if thereafter Ratan Singh has not discharged his obligation and handed over the vehicle to any third party, because of the unauthorised act of third party, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner inasmuch as the insured has done all he could do and there has been no willful violation or infringement of a promise by the insured, he places reliance on the ratio laid by the Supreme Court in Sohanlal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy : AIR1996SC2627 .