She filed the Claim Petition under section 110 A of the Act claiming a companypensation of Rs.1,00,000 for injuries sustained by her on account of the motor vehicle accident referred to above.
7,500 only.
The appeal filed by Guru was dismissed holding that he and his mechanic Momad Donttach alone were jointly and severally liable to pay the companypensation.
One Sayed Hussain was a partner of a firm by name M s. International Ship Repairers carrying on business at Vasco da Gama, Goa which was the owner of an Ambassador car.
The owner of the car, that is the insured and M s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the insurer pleaded that the car had been entrusted to the repairer to do electrical repairs job as an independent companytractor and that Momad Donttach attached to the garage of the repairer had taken away the car for driving without holding a valid driving licence and without the companysent of the owner of the motor vehicle owner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The short question involved in this case is whether an insurer who has issued a policy insuring any person specified in the policy against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, is liable to pay companypensation to such third party or to his or her legal representatives as the case may be when the liability arises when the motor vehicle is in the custody of a repairer.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.8.1987 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
He entrusted the said car to Guru, proprietor of M s. Auto Electrical Works on 26th February, .1983 with instructions to carry out electrical repairs to the car and handed over the keys of the car to the repairer for that purpose.
48 and 74 of 1986 J. John and Sanjay Grover for the Appellant.
The car had been insured by the owner with M s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as required by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1684 85 of 1988.
She numbericed a car parked near Damodar Mandap and proceeded further only to be knocked down by the very car which had reversed and dashed against her back.
The front tyre of the car passed over her abdomen and she had to be treated at Dr. Vernekars hospital and thereafter at Salgaoncars Medical Research Centre.
On the evening of February 26, 1983 Filomena F. Lobo, respondent No.
The respondents companytested the petition.
1 herein, aged 27 years was returning home along with her friend and was walking on the left side of the road.
After being discharged from the hospital where she spent about 20 days she was advised further treatment at Jaslok Hospital, Bombay and she was undergoing treatment even when she instituted a Claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao impleading the firm of which Sayed Hussain was a partner, Guru, the proprietor of M s. Auto Electrical Works, Momad Donttach, the employee of the repairer, who was repairing the car at the time of the accident and the insurer M s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as respondents.
K. Mehta, M.K. Dua, S.M. Sarin, Aman Vachher, R.J. Goulay, Mrs. S.C. Dhanda and H.K. Puri for the Respondents.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court Guru has filed the above appeals by special leave.
On the above pleadings the Tribunal framed among others the following issues i Whether the applicant proved that the accident which caused injuries to the claimant on 26.2.83 at Vasco, was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the mechanic, ii whether the applicant proved that the amount of companypensation claimed was due.
The motor car had been lent by Warbey to the defendant Knowles on whose behalf it was being driven at the material time by the defendant May, and, as the plaintiff alleged, being driven negligently.
