Vijay Singh Vs. Lakchhman Singh Parihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in.....tej shankar, j.1. counsel heard.2. there is an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay. the ground alleged is that the appeal had to be filed upto 3.9.1993, but the lawyers were on strike from 19.8.1993 to 21.9.1993 and as such, the appeal could not be filed.3. learned counsel for the respondent contested the application and argued that the appeal could have been filed, because the registry of the high court was working. there is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed.4. i have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel before me. the mere fact that the lawyers were on strike cannot be said to be sufficient ground for not filing the appeal within time. the learned counsel could have prepared the appeal at home and sent the memorandum for filing it through his client, i.e., the party. the party should have brought and filed it with the registry. the registry was functioning. there is, therefore, absolutely no ground for not filing the appeal within time. the application under section 5 of the limitation act is, therefore, rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.