Rama Jois, J.
1. In these two appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), an important question of law that arises for consideration is :
'Whether an insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the injury to or death of a third party, caused in a motor accident by a motor vehicle which is a stage carriage, while plying or being used lawfully otherwise than as a stage carriage, at a public place, if such place does not lie on the route in respect of which it is permitted to operate as a stage carriage ?'
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for appreciating the question arising for consideration in these two appeals are : A bus bearing registration No. MYN-3257 belonging to the appellant was registered as a stage carriage. On April 22, 1975, according to the appellant, he had sent the bus to K. R. Nagar in Mysore District to fetch diesel as diesel was not available at K. R. Pet. On the way to K. R. Nagar, the driver of the bus had parked the bus at Chunchanakatte. When it was so parked, someone meddled with the vehicle and, as a result, the vehicle moved backwards and hit against a stone mantap. As a result of the impact, the stone mantap collapsed and the stones fell down causing injury to three women who were sitting in the mantap. Out of them, one dies and one other was injured. Two claim petitions are presented, one claiming compensation for the death of one of the women and the other in respect of the injured woman.
4. The first question for consideration by the Tribunal was, as to whether the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent manner in which the bus was handled. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the Tribunal answered the question in the affirmative. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,500 in respect of the death of one of the women and Rs. 10,120 in respect of the injury caused to the claimant in the connected case. This assessment and award made by the Tribunal is also not in question in this appeal. On the question of liability of the insurance company, the Tribunal was of the view that, according to the insurance policy, the risk was covered subject to the condition that the vehicle was required to be used only as a stage carriage and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.
5. From the facts narrated above, it may be seen that there is no dispute about the material facts. The injured and the deceased were not passengers. They were third parties. The injury as well as the death were caused on account of the negligent manner in which the bus was used in a public place. The risk which is to be answered by the insurance company in the present case is the risk in respect of a third party. The provision contained in Chapter VIII of the 1939 Act makes insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks compulsory. Therefore, in a case of this type, what we have got to see is -
(i) whether the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued in conformity with Chapter VIII of the Act;
(ii) whether the death or injury complained of was caused by the use of the vehicle concerned in a public place.
6. If the answers to both the questions are in the affirmative, then there is no other alternative than to hold that the insurance company is liable.
7. Sri R. V. Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the insurance company, however, strenuously contended that, according to the insurance policy, the vehicle was meant to be used only as a stage carriage in respect of which a permit had been issued by the transport authorities and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation if it is found that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was used on a route or place which is not covered by a stage carriage permit.
8. Section 96(2) of the Act sets out the specific defence available to an insurer. If, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage on a route in respect of which it had no permit, then, probably the insurance company could have taken a defence under section 96(2)(b)(i)(a) of the Act. on the ground that it was being used in contravention of the permit. Whatever that may be, the facts of this case are entirely different. The vehicle in question was insured and the policy was in force. The insurance policy, a photo copy of which was produced at the time of hearing, discloses that the policy was for the period commencing from September 17, 1974, to September 16, 1975. The accident occurred on April 22, 1975. Further, as stated by the appellant, the vehicle was sent from K. R. Pet to K. R. Nagar for fetching diesel and it was not plying as a stage carriage on a route in respect of which there was no permit and it was in the course of that journey that the bus had been stopped at Chunchanakatte, and it was at that point of time that the accident occurred. From the facts, it is clear that the risk arose on account of the use of the vehicle in a public place. For these reasons, we answer the question, set out first, as follows :
'An insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the injury to or death of a third party caused by a motor accident by a motor vehicle which is a stage carriage, while plying or being used lawfully otherwise than as a stage carriage, at a public place, even if such public place does not lie on the route in respect of which it is permitted to operate as a stage carriage.'
9. In the result, we make the following order :
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The award made by the Tribunal is modified in that the liability to satisfy the award is fixed on the insurance company also.