Back
High Court Of Delhi
VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ROHINI BHAN - Respondent
Decided On : 08/29/1969
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - SCOPE OF SECTION 96(2) - RIGHT OF INSURER TO BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY - GROUNDS OF DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO INSURER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 96(2) - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 96 TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - RIGHT OF INSURER TO DEFEND ACTION IN NAME OF ASSURED - CONDITION IN POLICY - PROOF OF CONDITION.
Fact of the Case:
An application was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the widow of a deceased person who was knocked down by a truck insured with the respondent insurance company. The insurance company filed a written statement contesting the application, but the Tribunal struck out the name of the insurance company from the list of respondents on the ground that the pleas raised by the insurance company were not covered by sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company filed a revision petition against this order, and also filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend the claim in the name of the transport company.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company had a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was in error in striking out the name of the insurance company from the list of respondents. The court also held that the insurance company had the right to defend the action in the name of the assured, provided that it had reserved that right by the policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company had a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in striking out the name of the insurance company from the list of respondents? 3. Whether the insurance company had the right to defend the action in the name of the assured?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company had a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, because sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act gives the insurer the right to be made a party to the suit and to defend it. 2. The court held that the Tribunal was in error in striking out the name of the insurance company from the list of respondents, because the insurer has a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, even if the insurer does not take up any of the defences mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Act. 3. The court held that the insurance company had the right to defend the action in the name of the assured, provided that it had reserved that right by the policy.
Final Decision: The court accepted Civil Revision No. 458-D of 1961 and set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the name of the insurance company was struck out from the list of the respondents. In other respects the aforesaid revision was dismissed. Revision No. 459-D of 1961 was also dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 458-D and 459-D of 1961.
( 2 ) THE revisions arise out of an application filed on July 15, 1959, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, by Shrimati Robini Bhan widow of J. N. Bhan against Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Limited Respondent No. 1, Gaja Singh, truck driver, Respondent No. 2 and Vanguard Insurance Company, Limited, Respondent No. 3. According to the allegations of Shrimati Rohini Bhan, her husband J. N. Bhan while driving a scooter on April 30, 1959, was knocked down by truck No. DLD-5628 belonging to Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Gaja Singh was the driver of the truck at that time. It is alleged that Gaja Singh was an employee of Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. , and the accident occurred during the course of his employment. It is further stated that the above accident was due to reckless, rash and negligent driving of the truck by Gaja Singh. J. N. Bhan died as a result of the injuries received by him on May 8, 1959. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. was stated to be liable to pay compensation and damages to Shrimati Rohini Bhan because the truck was insured with that company. A claim of Rs. 50,000. 00 was accordingly made by Shrimati Rohini Bhan.
( 3 ) WRITTEN statements were filed on behalf of all the three respondents and they contested the application. The following issues were framed in the case :
(1) Whether it is not a properly constituted Tribunal under section 110 of the M. V. Act ?
(2) Whether the injuries to Shri J. N. Bhan were caused by the negligence of the respondent No. 2, and whether the death of Shri J. N. Bhan occurred due to these injuries ?
(3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled, and from whom ?
(4) Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident in course of employment of respondent No. 1 ?
( 4 ) ON September 8, 1960, an application was filed on behalf of Shrimati Rohini Bhan that the name of Respondent No. 3 be struck off as a party as the aforesaid respondent had taken grounds in the written statement which were not covered by sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). This application was resisted by Respondents I and 2 as well as by Respondent No. 3. Another application was filed by Shrimati Rohini Bhan petitioner, under Order 14 rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure praying that Issue No. 4 which arose out of the pleas raised by Respondent No. 3 might be deleted. This application too was resisted by all the respondents. The Claims Tribunal as per order dated September 24, 1960, held that the Insurance Company could become a party to the proceedings only if it was in a position to base its defence on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Act. It was further observed that as the pleas raised by the Insurance Company were not covered by that sub-section, the Insurance Company could not remain on the record as a party. The application of Shrimati Rohini Bhan for striking out the name of the Insurance Company from the list of respondents was allowed. Order was also made for the removal of the written statement of the Insurance Company from the record. It was further held that as Issue No. 4 arose out of the pleas taken in the written statement of the Insurance Company only, the said issue should be treated as deleted. Civil Revision 458-D/1961 has been filed by the Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. against the above order.
( 5 ) ON February 14, 1961 Vanguard Insurance Company Limited filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend the claim of Shrimati Rohini Bhan in the name of Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. This application was resisted by Shrimati Rohini Bhan. The Claims Tribunal as per order dated May 2, 1961 disallowed the above application. Civil Revision No. 459-D of 1961 is directed against that order.
(
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
