D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is vitiated for not bringing the legal representatives of the deceased owner - insured, during the pendency of the appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. 9720, which resulted in multiple injuries to the claimant. Hence the claimant filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 on all counts. The tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of rs. 53,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The Tribunal while granting the above amount, made both the owner - insured as well as the insurance company as jointly and severally liable and awarded proportionate costs.

( 3 ) NOT being satisfied with the awarded amount, the claimant preferred an appeal before this court in C. M. A. No. 143/1989 for enhancement of compensation. Pending adjudication of the appeal, the owner - insured died and the claimant did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of the insured and as such by order dated 25-7-1997, the appeal against him was dismissed.

( 4 ) WHILE disposing of the appeal, the preliminary question framed by the learned single Judge was "whether the appeal is maintainable against the second respondent - Insurance Company only, without bringing legal representatives of the deceased insured, the first respondent, to represent his estate. "

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the appeal as not maintainable for want of legal representatives of the deceased - insured being brought on record. The learned single Judge while holding that the appeal is not maintainable referred to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for brevity the Act ) and the rules thereunder, the provisions of the C. P. C. and also the latest decisions of this court, other high Courts and also the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge further considered the relevant provisions of Chapter XI of the act, which underline the principle that the insurer is only bound to indemnify the liability of the insured and satisfy judgment and decree passed against the insured and held that unless the liability of the insured is found, the question of binding the insurer to indemnify the liability of the insured does not arise. Accordingly the appeal on the preliminary question without going into other merits of the case, was dismissed. Hence this L. P. A.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant - appellant contended that as per Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is corresponding to Section 155 of the New act, of 1988, even after the death of the insured, subsequent to the accident and pending the proceedings, the cause of action survives against the insurer and the legal representatives of the insured need not be impleaded as respondents. He further contended that the policy goes with the vehicle and the insurance company cannot take any defence for not impleading the legal representatives of the insured. With these submissions, he sought for allowing of this appeal.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned standing counsel or the Insurance company supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the trial court on evidence, granted an amount of Rs. 53,000. 00 as compensation and further the trial court ordered that both the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded and, therefore, both the respondents i. e. , the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are liable to pay compensation. He further submitted that section 155 of the Act of 1988 does not state that if the owner of the vehicle dies, the insurance company has to pay the entire compensation to the claimant. He submitted that the learned Single Judge having considered all these aspects and in proper per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document