The appellant has also relied on Shankar Rao v. M s Babulal Fouzdar and another, A.I.R. 1980 Madhya Pradesh p. 154.
The ignition key was in the ignition lock and number in the cabin in the truck as alleged by the driver.
The truck had companye from Barejadi and had been unloaded at Baroda.
The driver had gone for bringing snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine running.
The insured has never permitted the cleaner to drive on the fatal occasion.
the insured was held vicariously liable along with the driver and the cleaner.
Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against per sons insured in respect of third party risks 1 If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub section 4 of Section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgments in respect of any such liabili ty is required to be companyered by a policy under clause b of sub section 1 of Section 95 being, a liability companyered by the terms of the policy is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, numberhwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person enti tled to the benefit of the decree any sum number exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor in respect of the liability such a truck with its running engine in the companytrol of the cleaner, this being the immedi ate cause of the accident, the owner of the car viz.
The view taken by the High Court has been summed up as under In the present case there is number an allega tion even that the insurer had at any time companymitted a breach of this companydition.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.1971 of the Gujarat High Court in F.A. No.
Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, H.K. Puri and S.C. Dhanda for the Appellant.
On these facts the driver having been grossly negligent in leav ing Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat.
CIVIL APFELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is the drivers negli gence in leaving the vehicle with its engine running with the ignition key in the ignition lock that resulted in this accident.
1306 N of 1973.
V. Goswami for the Respondents.
The facts are number in dispute.
The Claims Tribunal as also the High Court have companycurred with the findings which are recorded in the following passage The accident in question took place on Novem ber 14, 1964.
320 of 1967.
The unaesthetic wrinkles from the face of law require to be removed by settling the law so that the same law does number operate on citizens differently depending on the situs of the accident.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. While in some States1 a widow of a victim of a motor vehicle accident can recover the amount of companypensa tion awarded to her from the Insurance Company, in a pre cisely similar fact situation she would be unable to do so, in other States2, companyflicting views having been taken by the respective High Courts.
The question is whether the insurer is entitled to claim immunity from a decree obtained by the dependents of the victim of a fatal accident on the ground that the insurance policy provided a companydition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is number duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification, and that such exclusion was permissible in the companytext of Section 96 2 b ii 3 for claiming immunity against the obligation to satisfy the judgments against the insured in respect of third party risks.
The driver had handed over companytrol of the truck to the cleaner.
