Sadasivam, J.-The appellant, the Queensland Insurance Co., Ltd., in these appeals, was the second defendant in the three suits, O. S. No. 132 of 1961 filed by Swaminatha Mudaliar, O. S. No. 171 of 1962 filed by Lakshmikanthamma, wife of the said Swaminatha Mudaliar, and O. S. No. 84 of 1962 filed by the legal representatives of Sivagnana Thevar, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for damages for rash and negligent driving of the motor car, MSY 4891, by one Pitchai, who was employed as driver by one N. Radhakrishnan, the then owner of the car, who was impleaded as the first defendant in all the suits, resulting in a serious accident causing injuries to Swaminatha Mudaliar and his wife, Lakshmikanthamma, and the death of Sivagnana Thevar. It is not disputed that the driver, Pitchai, dozed off while driving the car along Tiruchirapalli-Turaiyur road and that this resulted in the car swerving from the road and dashing against the culvert near the milestone indicating 17 miles 2 furlongs. The driver of the car was prosecuted under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced.

There is no dispute about the quantum of damages assessed and decreed by the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs in each of the suits. One M. A. M. Kasi was impleaded as the third defendant in each of the suits, but he was exonerated as he had only taken a hire-purchase agreement for the loan advanced by him to N. Radhakrishnan. A plea was raised in the lower Court that it had no jurisdiction to try the suits and that the claims should have been made before the Tribunal constituted under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. But as the accident in this case occurred on 9th September, 1960, that is, prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the plea of jurisdiction was not pressed in the lower Court.

The appellant-insurance company put forward two contentions, namely, that the insurance policy issued by it to the original owner, T. M. Radhakrishna Chetty, lapsed on his selling the car and hence the insurance company could not be called upon to indemnify the vicarious liability of the first defendant, N. Radhakrishnan for the rash and negligent driving of the driver, Pitchai, and that, even under the terms of the policy, there could be no liability of the insurance company in view of the fact that the vehicle was hired by N. Radhakrishnan to Swaminatha Mudaliar to attend a marriage. The learned principal Subordinate Judge negatived both the pleas of the appellant and decreed the suits against the appellant and the owner N. Radhakrishnan. The appellant-company issued the policy, Exhibit B-4, to the then owner of the car, A. K. Muthukumaraswamy Chetty, agreeing to indemnify the insured in respect of his liability to third parties for death or bodily injury caused to persons by rash and negligent driving of the car. But the policy does not cover the use of the car for hire. The period of the policy was from 18th May, 1959 to 17th May, 1960. Subsequently, A. K. Muthukumaraswamy Chetty sold the car to T. M. Radhakrishna Chetty on 8th August, 1959, and intimated the same to the appellant, as evidenced by Exhibit B-19. T. M. Radhakrishna Chetty, in his turn, wrote the letter Exhibit B-30, to the appellant and the policy was transferred in his name, as evidenced by Exhibit B-22. Subsequently, T. M. Radhakrishna Chetty renewed the policy for another year from 18th May, 1960, to 17th May, 1961, subject to the conditions of policy already referred to in July, 1960. The first defendant, N. Radhakrishnan, purchased the car from one M. Rajarathnam Pillai, who had purchased the car from T. M. Radhakrishna Chetty earlier on 23rd June, 1960. But he did not notify the insurance company, or attempt to get any transfer of the policy in his name. In fact, even his vendor, M. Rajarathnam Pillai, did not notify his purchase of the car to the appellant-company.

As soon as he came to know of the accident, the f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document