ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. DH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but sure point raised by Shri Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant, relates to the liability of the insurance company when the Tribunal has exonerated the insured.

(2.) THE submission is based on the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under :

(3.) SHRI Mehta's contention is that irrespective of the question regarding acknowledgment of the transfer by the insurance company, the fact remains that the insurance company's insured was Abdul Aziz and when Abdul Aziz has been exonerated, the question of indemnifying Abdul Aziz under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot arise. In this connection, Shri Mehta has placed reliance upon the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathamma [1977] ACJ 469 (Kar), Minu B. Mehta v. Balakrishna Ramchandra Nayan [1977] 47 Comp Cas 736 (SC), Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bachan Singh [1984] 55 Comp Cas 28 (P&H;) [FB] and Abdul Gajoor v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1981] ACJ 340 (All).