B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) WITHIN the gamut of the controversies in this case, the questions involved for determination are:1. Whether the liability of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is absolved due to the vehicle involved in the accident belonging to the appellant-1st respondent was entrusted to a mechanic or repairer holding no driving licence resulting in the motor vehicle accident due to his negligence?2. (a) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate? (b) If so to what extent?3. (a) Whether the award of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside, modified or altered? (b) If so, to what extent?

( 2 ) THIS appeal and the Cross-objections are the result of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam in O. P. No. 149 of 1982 dated 2-6-1984 whereby the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal for a sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 was conceded only to the extent of Rs. 36,500/- putting the liability to satisfy the award only as against the appellant/owner of the vehicle and whereby the 3rd respondent insurance company was absolved of the liability to satisfy the award.

( 3 ) THE admitted and proved facts briefly stated are thes"e:- The deceased g. Rangaiah is the husband of claimant No. 1 and the father of claimant no. 2. He was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AAK 8706. The vehicle was left for repairs in the shop of one Devala Singh in Autonagar, vijatyawada. While the lorry was being driven by the mechanic Satluri venkateswara Rao, the accident occurred whereby the rear portion of the bus dashed against the deceased who sustained fatal injuries and died. The claim was resisted by the contesting respondents on various grounds. The allegation of negligence against the driver was challenged, the material particulars for claim were denied and the liability of the insurance company was challenged on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a person holding no driving licence whereby the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms of the insurance policy. After an enquiry the Tribunal held the accident as due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver at the relevant time, assessed the compensation at Rs. 36,500/- as a whole following a ruling of this Court in P. Somarajyam vs. APSRTC. ____________________________

( 4 ) THUS, aggrieved by the award, both the owner of the vehicle and the claimants have come up with this Appeal and Cross Objections.

( 5 ) THE first question being the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation as per the contention of Mr. Rama Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of this case are totally covered by the two authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Guru Govekar vs. Miss Filomena f. Lobo and Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Seshi Reddy and in view of the decision of this Court in Narasimha Rao vs. Ghanshyam Das Tapadia approved in Guru govekar s case. From the evidence and the findings it is clear that at the time of the accident the appellant/owner of the vehicle had entrusted it to a mechanic for repairs whose worker drove the vehicle and caused the accident due to negligence. The finding is that the driver who caused the accident had no driving licence. The question for determination before the Supreme Court in Guru Govekar s case was whether the insured (sic. insurer) who had issued the policy insuring any person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damaging any property of a third party except by or arising out of the motor vehicle in a public place is liable to pay compensation to such third party or his or her legal representatives as the case may be when the liability arises when the motor vehicle is in the custody of a repairer. After an elaborate dealing of the matter with the aid of the provisions Sections 94, 95 and 96 of the M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document