An insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the absence of particulars of insurance furnished by the claimant.

S. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THE Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company is in appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of Rs. 15,000/- passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, berhampur, in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the appellant.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his application under Section 110a of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000/- alleged that on 1-12-1982 the truck owned by respondent No. 2 being driven in rash and negligent manner ran over his daughter aged 8 to 9 years causing her instantaneous death. The owner did not enter appearance after notice. The Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company filed written statement and contested the claim for compensation at the hearing. In his written statement while denying that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently, he contended that the accident occurred due to the own negligence of the girl who fell on backside of the vehicle without the truck dashing her. As to insurance of the vehicle in question in paragraph 13 of the written statement it is stated that in absence of furnishing policy number in the petition it is not possible to answer or to affirm or admit if the respondent No. 1 (owner) was covered under any policy.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal observed that there was no specific denial that the vehicle was insured and taking the view that it was duly insured with the appellant, ultimately held that the claim of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation being reasonable, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the same.

( 4 ) THE short point canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that the claimant having not furnished particulars of the insurance and since Insurance Company deals with a large number of policies, it could not be possible for it to either admit or deny the fact of insurance of the vehicle in question and in this view of the matter, without any positive material on record the learned Tribunal erred in law in arriving at the finding that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant company. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that there being no specific denial by the Insurance Company, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is unassailable and the appeal must be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN law a person suffering injury as a result of motor accident is entitled to compensation from the person who caused the same. Thus primarily the liability is that of the driver. But the owner of the motor vehicle is made liable on the principle of vicarious liability. In case of a contract of motor insurance, the insurer seeks to indemnify the owner against liability arising out of claims of third parties against the insured person out of the use of the motor vehicle. In order to fasten liability on an insurance company in a claim under Section 110-A of the Act, there must be material on record that the owner had insured the vehicle with that insurance company. Obviously it is for the claimant to allege and prove the same if disputed. He can demand information from the owner in this regard invoking Section 98 of the Act. But the problem arises if the owner has not chosen to appear and service of notice on him is effected by substituted mode, as has happened in the present case. In this case the claimant has simply mentioned in item 16 of the application for compensation that the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Mangalebag, Cuttack is the insurer of the vehicle. No further particulars as to policy number etc. have been mentioned. In such facts can it be said that it is the duty of the insurance company to make a positive statement as to whether the assertion of the claimant is true or not ? The learned counsel for the claimant could not lay his hand on any authority vesting a duty in this regard on the insurance company. It is common knowledge that the insurance company deals with a very large number of policies and unless some particulars are supplied, it would not be p