- (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS is an appeal filed by the insurer against the impugned award dated 2-3-1996, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar-Kashi. One Sunder Lal died when the taxi by which he was travelling, met an acci dent on 10-11-1993 in Uttar Kashi district. He was 35 years old, was serving in Animal Husbandry Department at that time and was getting salary of Rs. 2,300 per month. The claimants, namely, widow, children and mother filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal holding that Sunder Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of the taxi by the driver, who himself owned the taxi and died of the same accident and considering his age and emoluments, determined compensation at Rs. 1,65,000 and held that the insurer was liable to indemnify that liability which was incurred by the owner of the vehicle. The only contention raised before us is that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the parties, inasmuch as the heirs of the deceased owner of the taxi were not impleaded. Such contention was raised before the Tribunal as well which held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to implead the heirs of the deceased owner of the taxi.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the insurer-Sri A. B. Saran vehemently urges before us that unless there is an award, against the owner of the vehicle, there shall be no responsibility of the insurer to indemnify the owner. He submits that there cannot be any award against the deceased insured, inasmuch as his heirs have not been im pleaded. There being no award against the owner, says Sri Saran, no liability could be said to have been incurred by the owner and that being so, the appellant is not liable to indemnify any liability in this case. The Tribunal clearly found that due to rash and negligent driving of the taxi by the deceased owner, the fatal accident was caused. The question for consideration is whether this finding is enough to conclude that the liability was incurred by the owner of the vehicle. Sri Saran submits that in this case no liability was created against the owner, inasmuch as his heirs were not impleaded and unless the liability of the owner is created, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify.;