Respondent No.
The State of Himachal Pradesh as also the Sub Divisional Magistrate Rampur were impleaded therein.
The said vehicle was in possession as also under the companytrol of the said officer.
HIS 6095.
He later on expired.
Use only for social, domestic and pleasures and insureds own purpose The car in question was requisitioned during the Assembly Elections in the year 1993 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Rampur through the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.
4 for the said Maruti Gypsy for the period 10.06.1993 to 9.06.1994.
208 of 1997 is as to whether in the event a car is requisitioned by the State for the purpose of deploying the same in the election duty, who would be liable to pay companypensation to the victim of the accident in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the 1988 Act .
In regard to limitation of its use, the insurance policy provided For private car IXI and Motor Cycle Scooter IYI.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.09.1996 upheld the companytention of the Insurance Company that under the terms of the insurance policy, it was number liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle as regards his liability to pay companypensation on account of said accident.
On or about 17.11.1993 while the Sub Divisional Magistrate Rampur was travelling in the said vehicle, an accident occurred as a result whereof a boy named Satish Kumar sustained injuries.
5796 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3 was the owner of a Maruti Gypsy bearing Registration No.
Appellant Company issued a policy of insurance in favour of Respondent No.
1 Deepa Devi and Joginder being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed an application for companypensation in terms of Section 166 of the 1988 Act.
Respondent No.
22778 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The short question involved in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 17.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in FAO MVA No.
