Bhimsen and ors. Vs. Vimladevi and ors.

Bhimsen and ors. vs Vimladevi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 29, 1989

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508683

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508683
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.D. Gyani and ;A.G. Qureshi, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 29, 1989
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhimsen and ors.

Respondent

Vimladevi and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: II(1989)ACC469

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is 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 a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4).....v.d. gyani, j.1. this miscellaneous appeal under section 110-d of the motor vehicles act (for short, the act) by the owners and driver of the vehicle, is directed against the award 21-3-1986, passed by the member, motor accident claims tribunal, ujjain, in claim case no. 25 of 1983, thereby awarding rs. 62,596.35 as compensation.2. there are cross-objections filed by both, the insurance company as well as the claimants. claimants have prayed for enhancement of rate of interest from 6% to 12% on the amount as awarded by the tribunal.3. shri singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised only one point for consideration in this appeal, which relates to employment of the driver. it was contended that the driver at the time of the accident was not in the employment of the bus-owners and as such, the owners could not be held liable. the same plea is raised in the cross- objection filed by the insurance company. their contention was that the person who was driving the vehicle was not in the employment of the insured nor was he having their permission or consent. as such, the insurance company was not liable. this plea was also raised before the tribunal and in face an issue was framed on this point. the tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was not correct to say that the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person.4. the tribunal has noted that it was never the case of the non- applicants, the present appellants, that the bus in question, at the time of the accident, was being driven by one aziz, zafarbhai, witness no. 2 for the non-applicants tried to suggest that while the bus was taken to a garage for repairs of its seats, it was driven by aziz. he has stated that at that time he was driving the bus of one om babu and was never in service of krishnadas, the appellant; whereas krishnadas in his evidence has stated that zafarbhai was in his employment for the last 3/4 years (prior to the accident), and it was zafarbhai, who had taken the.....

Full Judgment

V.D. Gyani, J.

1. This Miscellaneous appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) by the owners and driver of the vehicle, is directed against the award 21-3-1986, passed by the Member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ujjain, in claim Case No. 25 of 1983, thereby awarding Rs. 62,596.35 as compensation.

2. There are cross-objections filed by both, the Insurance Company as well as the claimants. Claimants have prayed for enhancement of rate of interest from 6% to 12% on the amount as awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Shri Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has raised only one point for consideration in this appeal, which relates to employment of the driver. It was contended that the driver at the time of the accident was not in the employment of the bus-owners and as such, the owners could not be held liable. The same plea is raised in the cross- objection filed by the Insurance Company. Their contention was that the person who was driving the vehicle was not in the employment of the Insured nor was he having their permission or consent. As such, the Insurance Company was not liable. This plea was also raised before the Tribunal and in face an issue was framed on this point. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was not correct to say that the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person.

4. The Tribunal has noted that it was never the case of the non- applicants, the present appellants, that the bus in question, at the time of the accident, was being driven by one Aziz, Zafarbhai, witness No. 2 for the non-applicants tried to suggest that while the bus was taken to a garage for repairs of its seats, it was driven by Aziz. He has stated that at that time he was driving the bus of one Om Babu and was never in service of Krishnadas, the appellant; whereas Krishnadas in his evidence has stated that Zafarbhai was in his employment for the last 3/4 years (prior to the accident), and it was Zafarbhai, who had taken the bus to the garage. This witness Zafarbhai was confronted with a direct question whether on the day he had taken the bus for carrying the workers of Shri Synthetics, for which the bus was engaged and was being plied by the appellants, doing many trips during the course of the day. The witness Zafarbhai has admitted that he had taken the labourers during the day but he also added that there was another driver for the night trips. The proprietor of the garage Bashir in his evidence stated that it was Zafarbhai, who had brought the the vehicle for repairs to his garage, although he could not say with precession the date or day on which it was so brought. In his cross- examination he admitted the position that the bus was being driven by Zafarkhan.

5. Considering all this evidence the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the person who was driving the bus at the time of the accident was in employment of the bus owners-appellants. This finding is well supported by evidence on record and we are not persuaded to take a different view. A host of authorities cited by the learned Counsel, in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal, do not come to their rescue.

6. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company also fails and is dismissed accordingly.

7. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum. There are series of decisions; wherein rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is 12% per annum. We need not cite all those decisions on this point. The rate of interest is accordingly enhanced from 6% per annum to 12% per annum on the amount awarded. The cross-objection filed by the respondent-claimants to that extent stands allowed.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1989 Same Parties Bhimsen and ors. vs Vimladevi and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.D. Gyani and ;A.G. Qureshi, JJ.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles