1986 Supreme(MP) 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.C. Shrivastava, J.
Bhagwati Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. – Respondent
M.A. No. 110 of 1985 (G)
Decided On : 25-11-1986

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 96 – person not insured – insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim.

       (2) Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939 – S. 110 – A – application under – driver is not necessary party.

        Short Note

       1. The order governs the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Nos. 110 and 111 of 1985. Both the appeals have been preferred under section 110 – D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against awards dated 11.7.1985 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Case Nos. 40/76 and 12/77, respectively.

       2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver by whom the accident was caused being not a party to the claim – petitions, liability cannot be fastened unto the owner i.e. the appellant. This contention is without substance, as I shall presently show. It is, well settled that liability of the owner, driver and insurer under section 110 – B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is joint and several. The liability being several as well, the driver is not a necessary party and even in his absence, the owner and the insurer can be held liable upon proof of the driver's negligence, besides other facts depending upon circumstances of the case.

       3. The only other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance company, i.e. the respondent No. 3 is liable to satisfy the awards. This contention is also devoid of substance. The insurance – policy is on record. It shows that the person insured was quite a different man, Ashok Kumar Agarwal and not the appellant. The insurance company never contracted to indemnify the appellant. The insured person having not been even joined as a party to these cases and having not been found liable, the insurance company cannot be held to be liable. 1970 JLJ 142 and 1980 ACJ 126 relied on. Appeal dismissed.