MISHRILAL Vs. KAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, due to which the accident occurred, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under Sub -section (1) of Section 96 (Section 149 of new Act) on the ground of contravention of condition in policy excluding its liability in case of vehicle being driven by a person not duly licensed. While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunals and courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident, is not defeated on technical grounds.These observations were made by the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC). In the light of these directions I proceed to consider the core question which arises in this appeal in respect of statutory liability of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'the insurance company').

(2.) FIRST the facts. An accident took place on 23.8.1991 near village Kohri where truck bearing No. RJU 6227 dashed with a wall and turned turtle as a result whereof one Gajja who was in the truck fell down and succumbed to the injuries. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 claiming compensation. The appellant is the owner of the truck which had been insured by respondent No. 8, the insurance company.

(3.) THE Tribunal on consideration of materials on record came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2 Betab Singh who did not have a driving licence. On that finding the Tribunal discharged the liability of the insurance company and directed the owner and the driver, i.e., appellant and respondent No. 7 to pay an amount of Rs. 2,22,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimants as compensation. Against the said award the appellant has preferred this appeal.