The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the singular expression 'owner or his authorized representative' in section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act to include owners or representatives in plural, as provided under the General Clauses Act.

S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the insurer appellant. This appeal was heard along with First Appeal from Order Nos. 1590, 1591 and 1592 of 2003.

( 2 ) TAKING into consideration the nature of the controversy raised all the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

( 3 ) IN an accident involving the offending motor vehicle bearing registration No. U. P. 13-B 452, Billu aged about 28 years, madan Lal alias Mohan Lal aged about 23 years, Mohan Singh aged about 50 years and Mani Ram aged about 18 years, met their untimely death. Their dependants filed separate claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation which petitions were registered as M. A. C. No. 124 of 1996 filed by the dependants of Billu, M. A. C. No. 125 of 1996 filed by Ganga Ram and other dependants of Mohan Lal; M. A. C. No. 127 of 1996 filed by Shanti Devi and others, dependants of Mohan Singh, M. A. C. No. 128 of 1996 filed by Daulat Ram and others, dependants of Mani Ram. All the claim petitions were heard together by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and were disposed of by a common order.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the insurer appellant has stated that the evidence by all the dependants was led in one case which was made the leading case and the said evidence was considered by the Tribunal for disposing of all the cases.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal after careful consideration of the evidence and the material brought on record, believing the case of the claimants has come to the conclusion that the deceased persons were owners of the singhara being carried in the offending motor vehicle for Dibai to Delhi for sale. All the four deceased persons were businessmen and had paid fare separately for the singhara being carried by them in the offending motor vehicle for sale at Delhi. The accident involving the offending motor vehicle had been caused on account of its rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal after considering the relevant factors had determined an amount of just compensation in M. A. C. No. 124 of 1996 at a figure of Rs. 2,24,600 so far as the dependants of Billu were concerned, Rs. 1,57,000 in m. A. C. No. 125 of 1996 so far as the dependants of Madan Lal were concerned, rs. 1,57,000 in M. A. C. No. 127 of 1996 so far as dependants of Mohan Singh were concerned, and Rs. 1,57,000 in the M. A. C. No. 128 of 1996 so far as the dependants of Mani Ram were concerned. The amount of compensation awarded was to carry a simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. It is not disputed that the offending motor vehicle had been duly insured and the owner insured had paid an amount of rs. 5,707 to the insurer for the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the copy of the insurance policy.

( 6 ) THE only submission that is urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that the offending motor vehicle being a goods vehicle, no liability for the payment of compensation could be fastened upon the insurer treating the travellers/passengers to be the owner of the goods. It is, however, not disputed that no effect was made by the insurer to obtain permission as envisaged under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles act. It is, therefore, obvious that view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), the insurer is not entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation.

( 7 ) THE contention further is that the provisions contained in section 147 of the motor Vehicles Act do not contemplate fastening of the liability on the insurer for the payment of compensation awarded to the dependants of more than one owner of the goods or his authorised representative, which were being carried in the offending motor vehicle. The basis of the aforesaid submission is the use of the expression owner or his authorised representative used in singular in section 147 (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document