The registered owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for an accident involving a motor vehicle, even if the vehicle was stolen.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 16.12.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.989 of 2003, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short “Tribunal”) whereby the claim made by the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident was allowed and the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants and directed insurance company to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance Company.

2. The appellants herein are the Insurance Company, respondents No.1 is the wife of the deceased, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased, respondent No.4 is the father of the deceased and respondent No.5 is the owner of the offending vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred as the Insurance Company; respondent Nos.1 to 4 are referred as the claimants; and respondent No.5 is referred as owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., while Sammi Reddy (deceased) was proceedings on his cycle towards Rising Sun School, Bhupalpally, to handover carriage to his children and when he reached near Kakatiya Bank, Bhupalpally, rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 N 3052 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle of the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died while he was undergoing treatment. In the said circumstances, the claimants have filed the above said M.V.O.P.No.989 of 2003 before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of the deceased.

4. The counter pleadings of the owner of the vehicle show that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and it was stolen by unknown offenders on 09.05.2003. In this regard, an FIR was registered in Crime No.78 of 2003 under Section 379 of IPC; that when the accident had occurred, the offending vehicle was driven by the person who had stolen the vehicle. Further, even if the policy was in force as on the date of accident, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The Insurance Company has also filed counter denying its liability.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the offending vehicle was stolen by an unknown offender and the accident has occurred when the vehicle was being driven by him. Therefore, both the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company are not liable to pay compensation. In support of her contention, she relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Selvarajamani, 1998 ACJ 547.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the crime vehicle was stolen; that the owner has not entered into the witness box to prove the same; that the Insurance Company has also not produced any evidence to prove that the vehicle was stolen when the accident had occurred; and that therefore, such contention cannot be raised without any evidence. He has also contended that even if the vehicle was stolen when the accident had occurred, still the registered owner is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company, which shall indemnify the insured, is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with registered owner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anita Devi, 2022 ACJ 1108.

9. In the said background of the contentions, the following two points arise for consideration in the present appeal.

(i) Whether there is evidence to hold that the crime vehicle was stolen; and

(ii) Whether even if the vehicle was stolen and the accident was committed by the pers