( 1 ) UNDER Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench. "whether an award directing payment of compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, be made against the insurer without an enquiry and a finding that the risk giving rise to the claim is covered by the policy of insurance?"

( 2 ) FACTS of the case leading to the reference are as follows:- On the 21st November 1986, a large number of persons were travelling in a truck bearing Registration No. MYJ 4535. They were going to a village in Maharashtra to earn their livelihood. When the truck came near the village Sattigere on Yadwad-Yargatti road at about 3. 30 a. m. it turned turtle on the off side of the road, as a result of the accident a large number of persons died and also injured. The persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed as many as 24 claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (`the Act' for short ). In the claim petitions they alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Different amounts of compensation were claimed in each of the petitions. To the claim petitions, the driver, the owner of the vehicle were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. The United India Insurance Company, Bijapur Branch was impleaded as respondent 3 as the insurer of the vehicle.

( 3 ) IN the same proceeding the petitioners also made claim under Section 92-A of the act, which was incorporated into the Act and which for the first time created "no fault liability" in case of death or permanent disablement caused by a motor accident to the extent indicated therein. This claim, having regard to the object and purpose of the provision, was taken up in the first instance for consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal held the 2nd respondent was liable to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the claimants in terms of Section 92-A of the Act.

( 4 ) AS far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it took the stand that the vehicle in question was a lorry, it was not authorised to carry passengers, and in any event the insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent did not cover the risk relating to the death or injury to passengers carried in the lorry. Therefore, the liability under Section 92-A of the Act could not be fastened to the Insurance Company.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal, however, held that all that was necessary to fastern the liability on the Insurance Company in respect of a claim under Section 92-A of the Act was, whether the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by an insurance policy and once it was found that there existed an insurance policy in respect of the vehilcle on the date of the accident, no other question is required to be considered and the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount specified in Section 92-A of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company - was liable to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in each of the claim petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Division Bench it was contended for the Insurance Company that when on the face of the Insurance Policy, the risk was not covered, the liability to pay compensation under S. 92-A of the Act, could not be fastened on the Insurance Company, just because an insurance policy was in force in respect of the vehicle concerned, on the date of the accident. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohammad Iqbal v. Bhimaiah, AIR 1985 Kar 171. The relevant paragraph was paragraph 20. It reads:-"20. The scope of enquiry, is no doubt, as contemplated in Section 92a of the Act, which is reproduced above. It states : `where the death or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document