BHARGAVA,J. - (1.) THIS is a miscellaneous appeal by the owner of a truck, against the award dated July 24, 1985, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, amounting to Rs. 1,20,000. The appeal came up for admission on October 18, 1985. Shri Rajendra Soni appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and notices were issued to respondents Nos. 7 and 8 as to why the appeal should not be admitted. It was admitted on October 29, 1985, and notices were issued to respondent No. 8. When the appeal came up for hearing, one of the points raised in this appeal was that since the goods vehicle (truck) was insured under a comprehensive policy, the whole amount awarded as damages by the Tribunal should be recoverable from and payable by the insurance company, and reliance was placed on Smt. Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram, AIR 1986 Raj 2; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 721 (Raj). Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that he had already filed an appeal against the said judgment which is still pending for service but since the point involved was very important and it was likely to arise in other cases, the case was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench.
(2.) TRUCK No. R.J.G. 3277, which was being driven by Abdul Shakoor, respondent No. 7, met with an accident on April 15, 1982, as a result whereof Daula Ram died. The legal representatives and dependants Nos. 1 to 6 of Daularam filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, claiming an amount of Rs. 3,22,000. The insurance company in reply submitted that it was responsible only to the tune of Rs. 50,000. The owner and the driver of the truck also contested the claim. The Tribunal, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that Daularam died on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver, Abdul Shakoor, respondent No. 7, and that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 in all. The Tribunal further held that the insurance company, respondent No. 8, is responsible only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and interest thereon, and the remaining amount of claim would be recoverable from the owner of the truck and the driver. It is against this award that the present appeal has been filed by the owner of the truck. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Smt. Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram, AIR 1986 Raj 2; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 721 (Raj) wherein the learned single judge, relying on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srisailam Devasthanam v. Bhavani Prameelamma, AIR 1983 AP 297; [1983] ACJ 580; [1985] 58 Comp Cas 816 (AP) and also two judgments of the Madras High Court in Rajeswari Transports (Firm), Theni v. M.G. Rajan [1982] ACJ (Suppl.) 118 ; [1982] 1 MLJ 248, and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Ganapathi Ramalingam, AIR 1981 Mad 299; [1982] ACJ (Suppl.) 106, and keeping in mind the observations of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896, held that the liability of the insurance company would extend to the limit of the award given by the Tribunal and since the vehicle was insured comprehensively, the whole amount awarded as compensation is recoverable from and payable by the insurance company.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanatnal Aswani, AIR 1964 SC 1736 ; [1964] 34 Comp Cas 693 (SC), Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 138 (SC) and Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 1624.;