- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta ('the Tribunal'), whereby for death of one Asu Das, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/ - alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing application i.e. 23.2.1998. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : Bus RJ -19P - 2155, which was being driven by Bhanwar Singh, owned by Umaid Singh and was on contract with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC'), met with an accident with Asu Das on 27.9.1997, aged about 35 years, who was riding a motor -cycle RJ -19 -8M -2451 from Merta City to Pipar City, resulting in the death of said Asu Das.
(2.) AN application for compensation was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Asu Das claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,32,000/ -. While filing reply to the application, the Insurer -appellant contended that the bus was insured for the period 9.10.1996 to 8.10.1997 and denied its liability on account of the fact that the bus was on contract with RSRTC and therefore, the responsibility was that of the said RSRTC only. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,17,000/ - and while deciding the issue relating to the liability, it came to the conclusion that the owner as well as the contractor are both responsible for payment of compensation and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to make payment of compensation and consequently, held the driver -Bhanwar Singh, owner -Umaid Singh, RSRTC -the contractor and the insurer ­ appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as the vehicle was on contract with RSRTC; the appellant had insured the owner i.e. Umaid Singh and as Umaid Singh is not vicariously liable for the actions of Bhanwar Singh, the driver, who was driving the vehicle under instructions from RSRTC at the relevant time, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RSRTC vs. Kailash Nath Kothari : (1997) 7 SCC 481. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC submitted that the vehicle was insured at the time when the accident took place. The appellant -Insurance Company irrespective of the fact that the vehicle was being plyed under the instructions of the owner or of the contractor -RSRTC cannot escape its liability. Reliance was place on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Utter Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum & Ors. : 2011 DNJ (SC) 739.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulsum (supra) while considering the judgment in the case of Kailash Nath Kothari (supra), inter -alia, held as under: - "29. Critical examination thereof would show that the Appellant and the owner had specifically agreed that the vehicle will be insured and a driver would be provided by owner of the vehicle but overall control, not only on the vehicle but also on the driver, would be that of the Corporation. Thus, the vehicle was given on hire by the owner of the vehicle together with its existing and running insurance policy. In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation. There is no denial of the fact by the Insurance Company that at the relevant point of time the vehicle in question was insured with it and the policy was very much in force and in existence. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal has also held that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It has also not been contended by it that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the policy or that the driver was not entitled to drive the said vehicle. 37. The liability to pay compensation is based on a statutory provision. Compulsory Insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the Third Parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to Third Party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Act does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, a separate Insurance Policy should be taken. The purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act has been enacted with an object to advance social justice. 41. Perusal of the ratio of aforesaid judgments of this Court, shows that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to Third Party in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicles or to the owners. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Third Parties. 45. Thus, looking to the matter from every angle, we are of the considered opinion that Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of payment of compensation to Third Parties or claimants. Admittedly, owner of the vehicle has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy or provisions of the Act. The owner had taken the insurance so as to meet such type of liability which may arise on account of use of the vehicle." ;