New India Assurance Co. vs Roopsingh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
V. V. and V. S. Dandwate for appellant; K. B. Joshi for respondent.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 -- S. 95, 110 -- A and 110-B -- liability of insurance company in case of accident -- driver not employed by owner of truck -- insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability.
        The Tribunal held that claimant Roopsingh was not an employee of the owner of the truck M/s Khandelwal Transport Company but he was an employee of the contractor who had taken the truck on hire and was carrying goods therein. The tribunal further held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The Tribunal determined the amount of damages payable to the claimant at Rs. 10,600/- and fastened the liability on the owner of the truck M/s Khandelwal Transport Company, the driver and the insurance Company, the appellant.
        The short question aring for consideration in this appeal is whether under the provisions of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act or the terms of the contract recited in the insurance policy the appellant insurance Company could be made liable for payment of damages on account of the said accident.
        Held : There are three Division Bench decisions on the point which are in favour of the appellant. They are South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heerabai (1967 ACJ 65), Surajmal v. Amars;ngh and others (LPA No. 6 of 1980; decided on 23-4-1981) and Abdul Salam v. Kishan [1981 (11) MPWN Note 226]. In all these cases it was held that the Insurance Company could not be held liable for damages In respect of an accident causing injuries to a person travelling in a truck unless he was employed by the Insurer in the terms of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act or of the insurance policy. In the instant case the insurance company had covered the risk of the Insured and of another person provided he is an employee of the Insurer and is driving on his order or with his permission. In the light or the settled view of this Court we hold that the appellant insurance company could not be made liable to indemnify the insurer i. e. the owner of the truck.
        The appeal is allowed and the award made against the appellant insurance company is set aside. 1967 ACJ 65, L. P.A. No.6 of 1980; Dt. 23-4-1981 and 1981 (11) MPWN 226 relied on. Appeal allowed.