M.Y. Eqbal, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the judgment and Award deted 6.2.1989 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accident/Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in Misc. Case No. 34/11 of 1983-88 whereby and whereunder the Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 36,624/- and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount to the claimant-respondent.
2. The claimant who is the widow of the deceased filed an application before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband in motor vehicle accident. While the deceased was returning from his duty he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BPN. 9293 at Jain More. The owner and insurer of the vehicle appeared and contested the suit. After hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation for a sum of Rs. 73,248/-. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant was not the sole heir rather the deceased died leaving behind other heirs and legal representatives, the claimant was entitled to half of the amount so assessed by him, i.e. Rs. 36,624/-. The learned Claims Tribunal further held that the said amount of Rs. 36,624/- was payable by the appellant, the owner of the vehicle.
3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the truck, submitted that when the insurance of the vehicle was not disputed or denied by the Insurance Company then the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation against the appellant merely because the appellant paid some amount to the claimant. Mr. Prasad further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the insurance policy was not produced by the owner of the vehicle and in absence of that the entire liability will be of the appellant.
4. Mr. Sahni, on the other hand, appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company submitted that there is no liability on the Insurance Company as the owner of the vehicle himself admitted the liability and paid about Rs. 4,000/to the claimant. The learned Counsel further submitted that on the failure of the owner of the vehicle in proving the Insurance policy, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding the compensation against the owner of the vehicle.
5. I have perused the lower court records. From the claim application, it appears that in paragraph -17 of the claim application the name of the insurer of the vehicle was specifically disclosed as National Insurance Company Limited. The appellant in Paragraph-13 of the written statement further clarified that the truck was insured by a valid policy No. 550/6301956. The Insurance Company appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed written statement and in paragraph-12 of the written statement, the insurance of the vehicle was specifically and categorically admitted. The only dispute raised by the Insurance Company was with regard to its liabilities. It further appears that the appellant filed documents along with the list on 9.11.1996 including the copy of the insurance policy.
6. In the light of the above facts, the only question falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation against the appellant who is owner of the truck. In the judgment also, I find that the Tribunal referred the defence taken by the owner of the vehicle by stating that the vehicle in question was fully covered by comprehensive policy No. 550/6301656. In my view, the Claims Tribunal was not correct in holding that the insurance policy was not filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1, the appellant and hence in absence of that policy, it cannot be said as to what was the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has further committed error of law in holding that in view of the admission made by the appellant for payment of compensation to the claimant, the appellant is liable to pay the entire compensation. Although the insurance policy was not brought on the record but in view of the admitted position that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the Respondent-Insurance Company cannot deny its statutory liabilities as provided u/s 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Admittedly, the statutory liabilities of the Insurance Company in respect of the goods vehicle was Rs. 50,000/- before October, 1982, and it was increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- with effect from 2.10.1982 by virtue of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 47 of 1982.
7. In view of the admitted position that the vehicle was insured, the claims Tribunal was not justified in holding that the compensation amount was payable by the appellant, the owner of the vehicle.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and Award are modified to the extent that the entire compensation amount shall be payable by the Respondent-Insurance Company as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the Respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount of Rs. 36,624/- to the claimant-Respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
