The Collector, as the requisitioning authority, is liable for compensation in case of an accident involving a requisitioned vehicle, even if the vehicle is insured.

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) INSURER is the appellant in this appeal under S. 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act' ). Cross-objection has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that on 31-5-1980 at about 11 a. m. the truck bearing registration No. ORU 1220 caused the accident as a result of which the claimant sustained extensive injuries including fracture of right leg and ankle bones. He was removed to Kendrapara hospital where he was an indoor patient from the date of occurrence for long.

( 3 ) CASE of the claimant is that on account of accident he became invalid, sustained a loss of Rs. 600/- per month which he was earning. Accordingly, ho made a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. The owner disputed the negligence in driving. It is his claim that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty and accordingly, he would not be liable to pay the compensation if at all it is awarded. The Collector, Cuttack, who requisitioned the vehicle did not appear in spite of valid service of notice and remained ex parte. The insurer claimed that under the terms of the policy it would not be liable to pay the compensation when the vehicle had been requisitioned by the Government.

( 4 ) THE driver of the vehicle has not been examined in this case. The nature of the injuries on the claimant is such that the driver would have been the best person to explain how the claimant sustained the injuries. In the absence of the examination of the driver for explaining the cause of accident, it can be safely concluded that on account of negligent driving of the vehicle the claimant sustained the injuries and he is entitled to compensation.

( 5 ) UNDER S. 110-B of the Act, the Tribunal is to specify the amount which would be paid by the insurer or the owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The word "owner" in this case is to be liberally interpreted. When a vehicle had been requisitioned, the Collector for the purpose of liability becomes the owner of the vehicle. In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under the control of the Collector and by such driving the vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed by the Collector. Thus, the Collector would be vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver in the present case.

( 6 ) THE short question is whether there was requisition. In the written statement of the owner it has been clearly stated that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector. P. W. 1 has stated that the vehicle contained the ballot boxes when the accident took place. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle had been requisitioned for the purpose of election duty. The Collector would, therefore, be liable for the compensation.

( 7 ) INSURANCE under the Motor Vehicles Act is a guarantee to the owner of the vehicle that in case of any claim with respect to the vehicle concerned, the insurer shall discharge the liability of the owner under the terms of the policy. It is a contract between the parties. It is not a universal guarantee for the vehicle whosoever becomes the owner. Therefore, the Collector having not been insured in respect of the requisitioned vehicle, there will be no liability of the insurer in respect of the accident during the period of requisition. Besides, the term of the policy which has been prayed to be accepted as additional evidence by the insurer which is not challenged by any party, clearly proves in the General Exceptions that during the period of requisition by the Government the insurer will not be liable. It reads as follows :"general Exceptions the Company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of (1) to (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) any accident loss damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred during the period of requisition or commendeering by the Government for any purpose

( 8 ) COMING to the cross-objection for enhancement of compensation, the Tribuna