@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of all these appeals together.
2. Three appeals being M.A. Nos. 548 and 549 of 1993 (R) and 140 of 1994 (R) have been filed by the owner of the truck in question and the
other three appeals (M.A. Nos. 257 of 1192 (R), 134 and 135 of 1993 (R) have been filed by the Insurance Company. The accident in question
occurred on 29th May, 1984 in which some persons died and some received injuries. All the deceased persons or the injured persons were
travelling as passengers in the truck bearing registration No. BRS 2851. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident (29th May, 1984), the law
applicable was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On some reasoning the Tribunal held in three cases the owner responsible to pay the compensation
amount. In other three cases, the Tribunal held the insurance Company responsible and liable to indemnify the owner and hence to pay the
awarded amount. Of course, it is undisputed that the truck in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The basic issue,
therefore, to be decided is whether in these three cases in which the Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay the awarded amount, such
finding was correct or not.
3. The issue relating to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount relating to or arising out of accident involving the
persons travelling in a goods vehicle (truck) has been the subject matter of controversy for a long time and the judicial opinion on the subject has
been divided. It is only recently that in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, reported in 2002 (8) SC 594 a 3-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has finally set at rest all such divergent views and has authoritatively pronounced that in all cases falling under
1939 Act, where the persons were travelling in a truck, whether on payment or otherwise, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the
awarded amount.
4. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the New India Assurance Company v. Asha
Rani and Ors., (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that in those three cases where the Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable, the award
to that extent deserves to be set aside and the liability to pay the awarded amount instead has to be passed on to the owner. In the other three
cases where the liability has already been saddled upon the ""owner"", no interference on the question of liability is called for.
5. In M.A. No. 257 of 1992 (R) the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand. In M.A. No. 140 of 1994 (R),
the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 39,900/- (rupees thirty nine thousand and nine hundred). In so far as M.A. 257 of 1992 (R) is
concerned, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the age of the deceased being 45 years and the fact that he
was an earning labourer, we feel that the Tribunal perhaps erred in assessing his monthly income at Rs. 500/-. In our view, the monthly income
should have been on the higher side and therefore, we enhance the compensation from Rs. 50,000/-to Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five
thousand). In M.A. No. 140 of 1994 (R) similarly on consideration of all the, relevant aspects and looking to the Income of the deceased and his
age being 50 years as also the fact that he left behind 7 dependents, we increase and enhance the compensation from Rs. 39,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-
. All other terms of the award in these two cases shall remain the same.
6. Based on the aforesaid observations and the reasoning, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of as herein below :--
(i) In all the six cases, the liability to pay the awarded amount shall rest on the owner of the vehicle in question.
(ii) The awards in which the liability has been saddled upon the insurer appellant to pay shall stand set aside to that extent and as indicated in (i)
above, this liability shall rest upon the owner. Appeal Nos. M.A. 257 of 1992 (R) and M.A. No. 134 and 135 of 1993 (R) are accordingly
allowed.
(iii) In M.A. No. 140 of 1994 (R) the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 39,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty Thousand).
(iv) In M.A. No. 257 of 1992 (R), the compensation amount shall stand enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- (seventy five thousand).
(v) All other terms of the awards shall remain unchanged and operative.
(vi) Appeals being M.A. 548 and 549 of 1993 (R) and M.A. 140 of 1994 (R) are dismissed. Cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed
to the extent indicated herein above.
7. In all the three appeals filed by the Insurance Company namely M.A. Nos. 257 of 1992 (R), 134 and 135 of 1993 (R), and if the appellant
Insurance Company in these appeals has deposited any amount in this Court the same shall be returned to it by the Registry on the appellant
making applications in that behalf.
8. In order to ensure that the claimants receive the compensation amount from the owner and if need be to execute the award against the owner,
we direct that the owner shall not part with the possession of the vehicle in question or its ownership.
These appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
.jpg)