Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
GURU GOVEKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MISS FILOMENA F. LOBO & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1988
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
OJHA, N.D. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1332 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 170
1988 SCC (3) 1 JT 1988 (2) 273
1988 SCALE (1)834
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Whether an insurer who has
issued an insurance policy in respect of a person against a
liability which may be incurred in respect of death of or
bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a
third party arising out of use of a motor vehicle in a
public place, is liable to pay compensation when liability
arises when motor vehicle is in the custody of a repairer.
HEADNOTE:
A car owned by a firm was entrusted to Guru, proprietor
of M/s Auto Electrical Works, for electrical repairs. The
car was insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as
required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (’The Act’).
When Momad Donttach an employee of the repairer, was
repairing the car, the respondent No. 1 was knocked down
when the car dashed against the said respondent as a result
whereof she had to be hospitalised and treated for injuries.
The respondent No. 1 instituted a claim petition under
section 110-A of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, impleading the firm-the owner of the car-Guru, the
repairer, Momad Donttach, the mechanic, and the insurer-M/s.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-as respondents. The respondents
contested the petition.
The Tribunal passed its award, allowing a compensation
of Rs.90,000 to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries
suffered by her, payable jointly and severally by the
insurer and all the other respondents. Aggrieved by the
decision of the Tribunal, the insurer and Guru filed appeals
before the High Court, which allowed the appeal of the
insurer, however, holding that under section 92 A of the
Act, the insurer was liable to pay to the extent of
Rs.7,500. Guru’s appeal was dismissed, holding that he and
his mechanic Momad Donttach alone were jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation, i.e. the entire sum awarded
minus Rs.7,500 above said. Aggrieved by the decision of the
High Court. Guru moved this Court for relief by special
leave.
Allowing the appeal and modifying the order of the High
Court, the Court,
171
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
^
HELD: The only question of law arising for
consideration was whether the insurer was liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant, which has to be resolved in
the light of the provisions of the Act. [175 B, C]
If a policy is taken in respect of a motor vehicle from
an insurer in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
VIII of the Act, the insurer is under an obligation to pay
the compensation payable to a third party on account of any
injury to his/her person, property or to a legal
representative of the third party in case of death of the
third party caused by use of the vehicle at a public place.
The liability to pay the said compensation arises when the
insured is using the vehicle in a public place. It also
arises when the insured has caused or allowed any other
person (including an independent contractor) to use his
vehicle in a public place and the death of or injury to the
person or property of a third party is caused on account of
the use of the said vehicle during such period, unless such
other person has himself taken out a policy of insurance to
cover the liability arising out of such an accident. [176E-]
In this case, neither Guru Govekar, the repairer, nor
his mechanic Momad Donttach had taken a policy of insurance
covering the liability to pay compensation payable to a
third party, when a motor vehicle taken for repairs from its
owner has caused the death of or injury to a third party.
When the owner of a Motor vehicle entrusts his vehicle to a
repairer to carry out repairs, he is allowing the repairer
to use his vehicle in that connection. It is also implicit
in the said transaction that unless there is any contract to
the contrary, the owner of the vehicle also causes or allows
any servant of the repairer, engaged in the work of repairs
to use the vehicle in connection with the work of repairs
and when such work of repair is being carried out in a
public place, if on account of the negligence of either the
repairer or his employee engaged in the repair work, a third
party dies or suffers injury to his person or property, the
insurer becomes liable to pay the compensation under the
provisions of the Act. While it may be true that under the
Law of Torts, the owner may not be liable on the principle
of vicarious liability, the insurer would be liable to pay
the compensation by virtue of the provisions of sections 94
and 95 of the Act. On the facts of the case, the insurer was
liable to pay the compensation found due to the claimant as
a consequence of the injuries suffered by her due to the
negligence of the mechanic engaged by the repairer who had
undertaken to repair the vehicle, by virtue of the
provisions contained in section 94 of the Act. Any other
view will expose the innocent third
172
parties to go without compensation when they suffer injuries
on account of such motor accidents and will defeat the very
object of introducing the necessity for taking out insurance
policy under the Act. [176H; 177A-C; 180F; 181F]
The Court allowed the appeal, modified the order of the
High Court and directed the insurer to pay to the claimant
the sum of Rs.90,000, etc. [181G]
Monk v. Warbey and others, [1935] 1 K.B. 75; McLeod (or
Houston) v. Buchanan, [1940] 2 All E.R. 179; Vijaynagaram
Narasimha Rao and others v. Chanashyam Das Tapadia and
others, [1986] A.C.J. 850; Shantibai and others v. The
Principal Govindram C. Sakseria Technological Institute,
Indore and others, [1972] ACJ 354; D. Rajapathi v.
University of Madurai and others, [1980] ACJ 113; New
Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Ors., [1964] SCR 867, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1684-85 of 1988.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.8.1987 of the
Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 48 and 74 of 1986
K.J. John and Sanjay Grover for the Appellant.
S.K. Mehta, M.K. Dua, S.M. Sarin, Aman Vachher, R.J.
Goulay, Mrs. S.C. Dhanda and H.K. Puri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The short question involved in this
case is whether an insurer who has issued a policy insuring
any person specified in the policy against any liability
which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or
bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a
third party caused by or arising out of the use of a motor
vehicle in a public place, is liable to pay compensation to
such third party or to his or her legal representatives as
the case may be when the liability arises when the motor
vehicle is in the custody of a repairer.
One Sayed Hussain was a partner of a firm by name M/s.
International Ship Repairers carrying on business at
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa which was the owner of an Ambassador car.
He entrusted the said car
173
to Guru, proprietor of M/s. Auto Electrical Works on 26th
February, .1983 with instructions to carry out electrical
repairs to the car and handed over the keys of the car to
the repairer for that purpose. The car had been insured by
the owner with M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as required
by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
(hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’).
On the evening of February 26, 1983 Filomena F. Lobo,
respondent No. 1 herein, aged 27 years was returning home
along with her friend and was walking on the left side of
the road. She noticed a car parked near Damodar Mandap and
proceeded further only to be knocked down by the very car
which had reversed and dashed against her back. The front
tyre of the car passed over her abdomen and she had to be
treated at Dr. Vernekar’s hospital and thereafter at
Salgaoncar’s Medical Research Centre. After being discharged
from the hospital where she spent about 20 days she was
advised further treatment at Jaslok Hospital, Bombay and she
was undergoing treatment even when she instituted a Claim
petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South
Goa at Margao impleading the firm of which Sayed Hussain was
a partner, Guru, the proprietor of M/s. Auto Electrical
Works, Momad Donttach, the employee of the repairer, who was
repairing the car at the time of the accident and the
insurer M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as respondents. She
filed the Claim Petition under section 110-A of the Act
claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for injuries
sustained by her on account of the motor vehicle accident
referred to above. The respondents contested the petition.
The owner of the car, that is the insured and M/s. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. the insurer pleaded that the car had been
entrusted to the repairer to do electrical repairs job as an
independent contractor and that Momad Donttach attached to
the garage of the repairer had taken away the car for
driving without holding a valid driving licence and without
the consent of the owner of the motor vehicle owner. Hence
neither the insurer that is the insurance company, nor the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
insured, that is, the owner of the vehicle, was liable to
pay any compensation. Momad Donttach the employee of the
repairer pleaded that he did not drive the vehicle involved
in the accident at any time, that the vehicle had been
entrusted to carry out repairs to Guru, the repairer, that
he being a mechanic was carrying out the repairs by sitting
on the front seat, i.e., the seat other than that of the
driver, that suddenly the vehicle got into motion and
started going in the reverse direction and that before he
could take the driver’s seat and apply the brakes the
vehicle got into the ditch and stopped. He further contended
that the applicant was guilty of contributory negligence in
as
174
much as she in exercise of due diligence ought not to have
walked A through the very little space between the vehicle
and the wall. He, however, did not deny that she suffered
injuries on account of one of the wheels of the vehicle
running over her body. Guru, the repairer pleaded that Momad
Donttach was not his employee and he had never engaged him
for any work and that it was not true that he was driving
the vehicle when the said vehicle was allegedly given for
electrical repairs. On the above pleadings the Tribunal
framed among others the following issues:(i) Whether the
applicant proved that the accident which caused injuries to
the claimant on 26.2.83 at Vasco, was due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the mechanic,; (ii) whether
the applicant proved that the amount of compensation claimed
was due. reasonable and adequate; and (iii) whether the
owner of the vehicle and the insurer proved that the
mechanic had driven the car without holding a valid licence
and without the consent of the owner The Tribunal on a
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed
before it found that the claimant had suffered injuries on
26.2.1983 on account of the rash and negligent handling of
the motor vehicle by Momad Donttach; that the claimant was
not guilty of any contributory negligence; that she was
entitled to a compensation of Rs.90,000 for the injuries
suffered by her; that Momad Donttach had a valid driving
licence; that the car had been entrusted by the owner to
Guru, the repairer for carrying out repairs; Momad Donttach
was an employee of Guru; that the accident had taken place
when the repairs were being effected to the car; and that
the insurer and all other respondents were liable to pay the
compensation of Rs.90,000 jointly and severally with
interest thereon at six per cent per annum from the date of
the claim till its complete satisfaction The Tribunal passed
its award accordingly
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the insurer
M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Guru to whom the car had
been entrusted for carrying out the repairs filed appeals
before the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench. The High Court
allowed the appeal filed by the insurer M/s. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. but however held that under section 92A
of the Act the insurer was liable to the extent of Rs. 7,500
only. The appeal filed by Guru was dismissed holding that he
and his mechanic Momad Donttach alone were jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. The result of the
judgment of the High Court was that the entire compensation
minus Rs.7,500 which the insurer was asked to pay under
section 92A of the Act had to be paid by Guru the repairer
of the car and his mechanic Momad Donttach. Aggrieved by the
decision of the High Court Guru has filed the above appeals
by special leave.
175
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
There is no dispute that the insurer had issued a
policy in respect of the car in question as provided in the
Act; that the claimant had suffered injury on account of the
negligence of the employee of the repairer, the appellant
herein; and that the car had been entrusted by the owner to
the repairer to carry out the repairs. The only question of
law which arises for consideration in this case is whether
the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
Under the Law of Toris the owner of a motor vehicle is
no doubt not liable to pay compensation to any third party
who suffers any injury on account of the negligence of the
employee of an independent contractor, who has taken the
vehicle from the owner for his own (independent
contractor’s) use. The question involved in this case has,
however, to be resolved in the light of the provisions of
the Act. The material part of section 94(1) of the Act reads
thus:
"94. Necessity for insurance against third
party risk (1) No person shall use except as a
passenger or cause or allow any other person to
use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless
there is in force in relation to the use of the
vehicle by that person or that other person, as
the case may be, a policy of insurance complying
with the requirements of this Chapter . . ."
The above provision requires every person, who uses a
motor vehicle in a public place, except as a passenger, to
take out a policy of insurance complying with the
requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act. It also requires a
person, who causes or allows any other person, to use his
motor vehicle in a public place to take out policy of
insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII of
the Act unless there is in force a policy of insurance in
relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person, as
required by Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 of the Act
contains the requirements of such policies and limits of
liability. The relevant portion of section 95 of the Act
reads thus:
"95. Requirements of policies and limits of
liability (1) In order to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter, a policy of
insurance must be a policy which-
(a) is issued by a person who is an
authorised insurer or by a cooperative society
allowed under section 108 to transact the business
of an insurer, and
176
(b) insures the person or classes of persons
specified in the policy to the extent specified in
sub-section (2)-
(i) against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death of or
bodily injury to any person or damage to any
property of a third party caused by or arising out
of the use of the vehicle in a public place
The portion of section 95 of the Act, extracted above,
requires every person, who is the owner of a motor vehicle
to take out a policy against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death of or injury to any
person or damage to any property of a third party caused by
or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place,
from an authorised insurer or a cooperative society allowed
under section 108 of the Act to transact the business of an
insurer. Under section 95(2)(c) of the Act in the case of
motor vehicles other than those referred to in clauses (a)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
or (b) of section 95(2) the policy of insurance should cover
the amount of liability incurred. Under section 125 of the
Act whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a
motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the
provisions of section 94 of the Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Thus
if a policy is taken in respect of a motor vehicle from an
insurer in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VIII
of the Act, the insurer is under an obligation to pay the
compensation payable to a third party on account of any
injury to his/her person or property or payable to the legal
representatives of the third party in case of death of the
third party caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehicle at a public place. The liability to pay compensation
in respect of death of or injury caused to the person or
property of a third party undoubtedly arises when such
injury is caused when the insured is using the vehicle in a
public place. It also arises when the insurer has caused or
allowed any other person (including an independent
contractor) to use his vehicle in a public place and the
death of or injury to the person or property of a third
party is caused on account of the use of the said vehicle
during such period, unless such other person has himself
taken out a policy of insurance to cover the liability
arising out of such an accident.
In the instant case neither Guru Govekar, the repairer,
nor his mechanic Momad Donttach had taken a policy of
insurance covering the liability to pay compensation payable
to a third party, when a motor vehicle taken for repair from
its owner has caused the death or
177
injury to any third party giving rise to the liability to
pay compensation. When the owner of a motor vehicle entrusts
his vehicle to a repairer to carry out repairs he is in fact
allowing the repairer to use his vehicle in that connection.
It is also implicit in the said transaction that unless
there is any cantract to the contrary the owner of the
vehicle also causes or allows any servant of the repairer
who is engaged in the work of repairs to use the motor
vehicle for the purpose of or in connection with the work of
repairs and when such work of repair is being carried out in
a public place if on account of the negligence of either the
repairer or his employee, who is engaged in connection with
the work of repair, a third party dies or suffers any injury
either to his person or property, the insurer becomes liable
to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Act. In
this context we may refer to the provisions of section 35(1)
of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which was in force in England,
which at the relevant time read as follows:
"35(1). Subject to the provisions of this
Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any
person to use, or to cause or permit any other
person to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless
there is in force in relation to the user of the
vehicle by that person or that other person, as
the case may be, such a policy of insurance or
such a security in respect of third-party risks as
complies with the requirements of this Part of
this Act. "
The above provision came up for consideration before
the English Court of Appeal in Monk v. Warbey and others,
[1935] 1 K.B. 75. In that case the plaintiff claimed damages
for personal injuries sustained by him as the result of a
collision between a motor coach driven by him and motor car
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
belonging to the defendant, Warbey. The motor car had been
lent by Warbey to the defendant Knowles on whose behalf it
was being driven at the material time by the defendant May,
and, as the plaintiff alleged, being driven negligently.
Warbey, the owner of the car, was insured against third
party risks, but neither Knowles nor May was insured against
those risks. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Warbey
by permitting the car to be used by Knowles and May, when no
policy of insurance was in force in relation to such user,
committed a breach of the duty imposed by section 35 of the
Road Traffic Act, 1930. The plaintiff further alleged that
neither Knowles nor May was possessed of any means with
which to pay any sum in respect of the damage sustained by
the plaintiff. The defendant Warbey pleaded in the course of
his defence (i) that the action against him was based upon
the alleged breach of a statutory duty and it was
178
not such a breach as gave a cause of action to an injured
member of the public; (ii) that in any event the damage was
too remote in law; and (iii) that the action against the
defendant Warbey was premature in that he could not be
joined with Knowles and May until the rights, if any,
against them had been exhausted The trial Court rejected the
defence of Warbey and made a decree against him for 70.
Warbey appealed to the Court of Appeal. Greer. L.J in the
course of his judgment explained the object of enacting
section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 and the basis of
the liability of the owner of the vehicle at pages 80-81
thus:
"Consequently the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was
passed for the very purpose of making provision
for third parties who suffered injury by the
negligent driving of motor vehicles by uninsured
persons to whom the insured owner had lent such
vehicles How could Parliament make provision for
their protection from such risks if it did not
enable an injured third person to recover for a
breach of s. 35? That section which is in Part II
of the Act headed ’Provision against third-party
risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles’,
would indeed be no protection to a person injured
by the negligence of an uninsured person to whom a
car had been lent by the insured owner. if no
civil remedy were available for a breach of the
section The Act requires every person who runs a
car to have an insurance on the use of the car,
and to provide himself with a certificate stating
the terms of the insurance. Section 35, sub-s. 1
says that ’subject to the provisions of this Part
of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person
to use, or to cause or permit any other person to
use, a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in
force in relation to the user of the vehicle by
that person or that other person, as the case may
be, such a policy of insurance or such a security
in respect of third party risks as complies with
the requirements of this Part of this Act.’ There
is no dispute that the appellant committed a
breach of the section, but it is argued that
taking the Act as a whole it is clear that it was
not intended to confer a right upon an injured
third person to claim damages for such a breach.
It seems to me that the situation is exactly
within the language of A.L. Smith L.J in Groves v.
Lord Wimborne, [1898] 2 Q.B 402 where he said at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
page 406: ’The Act in question,’ the Factory &
Workshop Act, 1878 ’which followed numerous other
Acts in pari materia, is not
179
in the nature of a private legislative bargain
between employers and workmen, as the learned
judge seemed to think, but is a public Act passed
in favour of the workers in factories and
workshops to compel their employers to do certain
things for their protection and benefit.’ The Lord
Justice then said at page 407: ’Could it be
doubted that, if s. 5 stood alone, and no fine
were provided by the Act for contravention of its
provisions, a person injured by a breach of the
absolute and unqualified duty imposed by that
section would have a cause of action in respect of
that breach? Clearly it could not be doubted. That
being so, unless it appears from the whole
’purview’ of the Act, to use the language of Lord
Cairns in the case of Atkinson v. Newcastle
Waterworks Co., [1877] 2 Ex. D. 441, that it was
the intention of the Legislature that the only
remedy for breach of the statutory duty should be
by proceeding for the fine imposed by s. 82, it
follows that, upon proof of a breach of that duty
by the employer and injury thereby occasioned to
the workman, a cause of action is established.’
The result of the above construction may be stated
as follows: prima facie a person who has been
injured by the breach of a statute has a right to
recover damages from the person committing it
unless it can be established by considering the
whole of the Act that no such right was intended
to be given. So far from that being shown in this
case, the contrary is established. To prosecute
for a penalty is no sufficient protection and is a
poor consolation to the injured person though it
affords a reason why persons should not commit a
breach of the statute."
Maugham, L.J. and Roche, L.J. agreed with the above
view expressed by Greer, L.J. The above decision was later
on approved by the House of Lords in McLeod (or Houston) v.
Buchanan, [1940] 2 All E.R. 179. Summarising the effect of
the decision in Monk v. Warbey (supra) in Shawcross on Motor
Insurance, Second Edition at page 6 it is observed thus:
"(1) The owner who delivers his car to a
repairer will be liable to a third party who
sustains personal injuries and is unable to
recover from the repairer because the repairer has
no insurance (g)."
We agree with the view expressed in Monk v. Warbey
(supra). In India the opinion appears to be divided on the
liability of the insurer of a motor vehicle when the
accident giving rise to the claim takes place
180
when the motor vehicle is in the custody of a repairer. In
Vijayanagaram Narasimha Rao and Others v. Chanashyam Das
Tapadia and others, [1986] ACJ 850, Ramaswamy, J. of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that once the owner had
entrusted the motor vehicle to the licensed mechanic to
effect repairs, testing being integral part of effecting
repairs and the accident had taken place during the course
of testing the vehicle, the necessary conclusion was that
the mechanic acted within his limits of authority and in the
course of the employment for and on behalf of the owner.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
Therefore, the owner should be vicariously liable for the
acts of the mechanic. Accordingly, he held that both the
owner and the insurance company were also jointly and
severally liable for the payment of the compensation to the
third party, who had suffered the injury by virtue of the
provisions of the Act. The decision of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in Shantibai and others v. The Principal,
Govindram Sakseria Technological Institute, Indore and
others, [1972] ACJ 354 is also to the same effect. G.L. Oza,
J., as he then was, in the course of the said decision
rejected the contention of the insurance company based on
the exemption clause which exempted the insurance company
from liability arising out of an accident during the period
when the motor vehicle was used ’for hire or used for
organised racing, pace-making, reliability speed-testing’,
which was also one of the contentions urged before us in the
present case although the said contention could not be urged
in the circumstances of this case. We do not agree with the
decision in D. Rajapathi v. University of Madurai and
others, [1980] ACJ 113 in which it has been held that the
doctrine of vicarious liability could not be extended to a
case where the accident had taken place on account of the
negligence of the driver employed by an independent
contractor even when the claim is made not under the Law of
Torts but under the provisions of the Act. While it may be
true, as we have observed earlier, that under the Law of
Torts, the owner may not be liable on the principle of
vicarious liability, the insurer would be liable to pay the
compensation by virtue of the provisions of section 94 and
section 95 of the Act, referred to above
We may now refer to the decision of this Court in the
New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani
and ors., [1964] S.C.R. 867. In that case the owner of a
motor car had insured it with the appellant, insurance
company, under a comprehensive policy. He had permitted
another person, who had insured his own car with another
company, to drive it and while the other person was driving
the car it met with an accident. As a result of the accident
one person died and another person sustained injuries. Both
of them were in the car. The heirs of the man who died and
the Person who sustained
181
injuries filed suits for damages. This Court held that on a
consideration of the provisions of sections 93 to 96 of the
Act the insurer was liable to indemnify the person or class
of persons specified in the policy in respect of any
liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of
that person or those classes of persons. If the policy
covers the insurer for his liability to the third party, the
insurer was bound to indemnify the person or classes of
person specified in the policy. The same was the effect of
sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act which provided that
the insurer was bound to pay to the person entitled to the
benefit of a decree he had obtained in respect of any
liability covered by the terms of the policy against any
person irrespective of the fact that the insurer was
entitled to avoid or cancel the policy. This meant that once
the insurer had issued a certificate of insurance in
accordance with sub-section (4) of section 95 of the Act the
insurer had to satisfy any decree which a person receiving
injuries from the use of the vehicle insured had obtained
against any person insured by the policy. He was liable to
satisfy the decree when he had been served with a notice
under sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Act about the
proceedings in which the judgment was delivered.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
Thus on the facts of the case before us we are of the
view that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation
found to be due to the claimant as a consequence of the
injuries suffered by her in a public place on account of the
car colliding with her on account of the negligence of the
mechanic who had been engaged by the repairer who had
undertaken to repair the vehicle by virtue of the provisions
contained in section 94 of the Act which provides that no
person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any
other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place,
unless there is in force in relation to the use of the
vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may
be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of
Chapter VIII of the Act. Any other view will expose innocent
third parties to go without compensation when they suffer
injury on account of such motor accidents and will defeat
the very object of introducing ’the necessity for taking out
insurance policy under the Act.
We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order
passed by the High Court and direct the insurer, the
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to pay to the claimant Miss
Filomena F. Lobo a sum of Rs.90,000 along with interest and
costs as directed by the Tribunal. The parties shall,
however, bear their own costs in this Court and in the High
Court.
S.L. Appeal allowed
182