1974 Supreme(Gau) 32

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D. M. SEN AND B. N. SARMA, J.
Assam Corporation and another -Appellant
Versus
Binu Rani Ao and others -Respondent
M. A. (F) Nos. 12 and 23 of 1968
Decided On : 11-07-1974

The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 impose a statutory liability on the insurer to pay such compensation which is payable by the insured in terms of the policy, independently of the provisions of Section 96 of the Act.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - [SECTION 110, 110-A, 110-B, 110-C, 110-D, 110-E, 110-F, 95, 96] - INSURANCE COMPANY - LIABILITY - COMPENSATION - THIRD PARTY - GRATUITOUS PASSENGER - LIMITATION - NEGLIGENCE - DRIVER - LIABILITY OF OWNER - DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR - GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN POLICY.

Fact of the Case:

A collision between two vehicles resulted in serious injuries to a gratuitous passenger in one of the vehicles. The injured filed a claim petition under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle in which she was travelling and the Union of India, the owner of the other vehicle. The Tribunal held that the accident took place mainly due to the negligence of the driver of the military vehicle, though the driver of the jeep was also partially responsible. The Tribunal also held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation except a reasonable sum not exceeding Rs. 300 as medical expenses incurred by the claimant. The injured appealed against the award of the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle in which the injured was travelling and the Union of India also filed appeals.

Finding of the Court:

1. The claim against the Union of India was not barred by limitation as the mistake in mentioning the Officer Commanding as the owner of the vehicle instead of the Union of India in column 14 of the application was a formal defect which could be rectified after the expiry of the limitation period. 2. The accident took place entirely due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep and no blame could be attached to the driver of the Military vehicle for the collision which he could not avoid. 3. The quantum of damage as assessed by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant was not excessive. 4. The Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 110 to 110-F of the Act, even though the liability was not required to be covered by a policy under Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant being a gratuitous passenger in the jeep was not a third party and as such the policy covering third party risk was of no avail for her was rejected. 6. The contention of the Insurance Company that Suresh was not authorised by the owner to drive the vehicle on that day and as such the owner cannot be held liable was also rejected. 7. The contention of the Insurance Company that the driver Suresh having been under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident, the insurer is not liable to make any payment as provided in the general exceptions as appended to the policy was rejected as there was no evidence that Suresh was under the influence of liquor. 8. In the absence of any appeal by the claimant against the Insurance Company, the Court could still make an award against the Company in the present appeals.

Issues: 1. Whether the claim against the Union of India was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the jeep belonging to the Corporation or of the driver of the Military vehicle or of both? 3. Whether the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal was excessive? 4. Whether the Insurance Co. (respondent No. 3) can be made liable under the terms and conditions of the policy-Ext. A to pay such compensation which is payable by the insured, namely, the Corporation? 5. Whether in the absence of any appeals by the claimant against the award of Tribunal any award can be made against the Insurance (Company) now?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A formal defect in mentioning the appropriate name of the person who would be ultimately liable to pay compensation to the claimant is not entitled to defeat the claim filed under the Act. 2. The scheme of the Act leaves it to be ascertained by the Tribunal which has been entrusted with the duty of finding out all the parties who may be liable to pay compensation, from the particulars supplied in the application. 3. The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Act provide a self-contained procedure for the disposal of such claim petitions. 4. The provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Act impose a statutory liability on the insurer to pay such compensation which is payable by the insured in terms of the policy, independently of the provisions of Section 96 of the Act. 5. The word "third party" has not been defined in the Act or in the Rules. So we have got to depend on the Dictionary meaning of the word or on some judicial interpretation of the word.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed. The owner of the vehicle in which the injured was travelling was held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation and the Union of India was not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the entire amount.