1. By this common judgment CIMA No. 99 of 1987 and the unnumbered and unregistered cross-objections shall be disposed of together.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, delivered in File No 48/ Claim of 1978 on 33.8.1987. The appellant in this court is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The brief facts leading to the filling of the present appeal are: that deceased Hira Singh aged 45 years died, on 26.4.1978 as a result of an accident because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. JKN-6193 by respondent Jasbir Singh. The accident in question took place at about 9 a. m, on 24.4.1978 where the deceased Hira Singh was standing on the extreme left side of Jammu-Satvvari road near New Transport Yard and was talking to one S. Devi Singh, who was also injured during this accident. The vehicle in question was driven at the relevant time by respondent Jasbir Singh rashly and negligently. The deceased was removed to S. M. G. S. Hospital Jammu where he died on 26.4.1978 at 1.30 a. m. The vehicle in question was insured with the appellant insurance company for the relevant time vide Policy No. 2616/2/15/MB/71/77. The ownership and the insurance of the vehicle have been admitted by the appellant but it was averred by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was not being driven by an authorised person at the relevant time, On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudications ;-

"1. Whether respondent 4, Jasbir Singh, while in the employment of respondent no. 1, was on 24.4.1978 driving vehicle No. 6193/JKN rashly and negligently near Tawi Bridge Octroi Post and as a result of his rashness and negligence the deceased Hira Singh was knocked down by the vehicle which resulted into his death and injuries to one Deva Singh? OPP.

2. On proof of issue no. 1. are the petitioners entitled to receive compensation from the respondents ? If so, to what extent and in what proportion?

OPP.

3. Relief.

After a detailed discussion of the evidence recorded by the Claims Tribunal, findings on all the aforesaid three issues were returned by it in favour of the claimants. By its findings the Claims Tribunal held that the accident in question was caused because of the rashness and negligence of the respondent Jasbir Singh, who even though originally was the conductor of the vehicle was driving it at the relevant time. As per the factual findings of the Tribunal, the original driver Rattan Lal was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time nor was he in any way involved in the accident. Because Jasbir Singh was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and was admittedly in the employment of respondent Manjit singh, the owner of the-vehicle, both Jasbir Singh and Manjit Singh were held liable, Manjit Singh vicariously being the employer of Jasbir singh. Since the vehicle was insured with appellant company an award of Rs. 50.000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the payment of the amount with costs of Rs. 1000/, was passed. Because of the contract of insurance, the appellant company was directed to make entire payment of the awarded amount with interest and costs. The amount of compensation directed to be apportioned between the claimants in equal shares.

3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the only ground urged by Mr. H.L. Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, was that the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was driven by an unauhorised person and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in satisfying the award passed by the Tribunal. By the expression "unauthorised person" by way of elaboration, Mr. Chowdhary explained that Jasbir Singh was employed as a conductor of the offending vehicle at the relevant time when respondent Rattan Lal was, in fact, employed as the drive

Click Here to Read the rest of this document