The learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent companyceded that the appeal preferred by the Respondent was maintainable.
Hence, this appeal.
Anjali Rai, died.
The statutory bar as regards raising a defence on the part of the insurance companypany is companyfined to the quantum of damages only.
The said taxi met with an accident on 14.8.2000 at about 1 p.m. as a result whereof a girl aged about 12 years, Km.
BR 03 P 9011.
One Ram Lal was working as a Khalasi in the said taxi.
3 herein violated the terms and companyditions of companytract of licence, the learned Tribunal relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Others 2001 4 SCC 342 held that the Insurance Company cannot get rid of its third party liability as the said question arises only between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance companypany.
The said vehicle admittedly was being used as a taxi and, thus, a companymercial vehicle.
Arising out of SLP C No.14306 of 2003 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
He had a driving licence.
Driving licence, however, was granted to him for driving a Light Motor Vehicle.
The said taxi admittedly was insured with the Appellant herein.
However, as regard the question as to whether by permitting the said Ram Lal to drive the said vehicle, the Respondent No.
He used to drive the said vehicle sometimes.
3 herein is owner of a jeep bearing registration No.
Respondent No.
The appeal preferred thereagainst by the Appellant herein before the High Court was dismissed on the premise that numberappeal was maintainable wherefor reliance was placed by the High Court on a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others JT 2002 7 SC 251.
However, relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Others 2005 SCC Cri 148 he argued that the insurance companypany may pay the awarded amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
