A contract of insurance against third-party risks issued to a minor owner of a motor vehicle is not void and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident caused by the insured vehicle.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 16.1.1995 passed in Claim Case No. 82 of 1993 by 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Chokhelal, who had claimed compensation amount of Rs. 14,90,000 for the death of Chokhelal, caused in motor accident on 6.8.1992 at about 11.30 a.m. by truck No. MPJ 5588, driven by respondent No. 6, owned by respondent No. 7 and insured with the appellant. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed their joint written statement denying their liability to pay compensation. Appellant in its separate written statement contended that the contract of insurance entered into between the appellant and the owner of the vehicle is void as he was minor and was not competent to contract. The policy was obtained by the father of respondent No. 7 by concealment and suppression of the material fact of minority of respondent No. 7.

3. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the truck driver as a result of which motor-cyclist Chokhelal died. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged 38 years and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month by contractorship and from agriculture. After deducting 73rd amount towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency was estimated at Rs. 39,600, applying the multiplier of 11, the amount was worked out to Rs. 4,35,600, in that Rs. 10,000 was added towards consortium and Rs. 2,000 to each child for loss of company and love and affection. Thus award of Rs. 4,53,600 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, that is, 2.9.1992, till realisation, was passed against the owner, driver and insurer.

4. The finding on issue No. 1 holding that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of truck driver resulting in the death of Chokhelal, has not been challenged before us.

5. Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant cannot be made liable to pay as the policy was void from its inception, as at the time of entering into contract of insurance, Exh. D-1, the respondent No. 7 who is the insured was a minor. This material fact was suppressed by the father of the respondent No. 7 at the time of giving proposal form. The contract was void as respondent No. 7 was not competent to enter into contract in view of Section 11 of Indian Contract Act. Counsel cited Ma Hnit v. Hashim Ebrahim Meter, AIR 1919 PC 129 and Govind Ram v. Piran Ditta, AIR 1935 Lahore 561. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the quantum of compensation. It was submitted that Rs. 8,000 for love and affection to minor children could not have been awarded.

6. Mr. U.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7, submitted that the Act does not prohibit a minor to be the owner of a motor vehicle. If the minor can be the owner of the vehicle which is to be used at a public place, such vehicle has necessarily to be insured. The contract of insurance was for the benefit of minor. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, in that case property of minor cannot be insured which is not the law. He cited Great American Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Madanlal Sonulal, AIR 1935 Bombay 353.

7. Mr. Y.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondents-claimants, has supported the award.

8. To establish the plea that the policy was obtained by suppressing material fact, the appellant examined Indrajeet Singh, Branch Manager, NAW 1, who stated that when the insurance was obtained in the name of the insured, he was a minor. He admitted that in the proposal form, there is no column wherein the age of the insured is to be declared and stated. On behalf of the owner, Premlal, NAW 2, father of the insured appeared as a witness and stated that he got the vehicl