On 31.10.1989 one Rajinder Singh, who was riding as a pillion rider while the scooter was being driven by respondent number 1, died as a result of an accident.
Respondent number5 denied his liability on the ground that he had ceased to be the owner of the scooter prior to the accident.
Respondent No.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the tribunal made an award dated 8.12.1992 and came to the companyclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent number1.
For companyering liability to pillion passengers endorsement of I.M.T. 70 pertaining to accident to unnamed hirer driver pillion passenger, is required on the insurance policy, which may be obtained by payment of additional premium.
Only respondent number1 was held liable for payment of the companypensation determined by the tribunal together with interest and companyts.
This petition was opposed by the insurance companypany on two grounds a that the deceased was a pillion rider and the insurance policy did number companyer the liability towards a pillion rider and, b that, although, the original insurer respondent number 5.
did number companytain an endorsement of IMT 70.
9/93 before the High Court and assailed the findings of the tribunal on all the issues, particularly its absolution of the insurance companypany from liability.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant insurance companypany is before this Court.
It also held that the claimants respondents 2 to 4 were entitled to a total companypensation of Rs.
had sold the scooter to respondent number1 before the accident neither was any intimation of such sale was given, number was the insurance policy got transferred in favour of respondent number1.
With effect from 1.7.1989 the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act was repealed and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act came into force.
On 23rd March 1989 the scooter was admittedly sold by respondent number5 to respondent number1, Tilak Raj.
3,89,000/ The tribunal absolved the appellant insurance companypany from liability on the ground that numbernotice of the transfer of the insured vehicle had been given to the appellant insurance companypany in the manner prescribed by the 1939 Act.
Respondent number1 appealed against the award by FAO No.
Respondents 2 to 4 also filed cross objections and sought increase in the companypensation awarded.
The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld the finding, as to the quantum of companypensation at Rs.
3,89,000/ but set aside the finding of the tribunal that the insurance companypany was number liable under the policy and held that the insurance companypany was jointly and severally liable along with the appellant for the payment of the amount of companypensation determined and awarded.
It is also an admitted position that the registration certificate of the scooter was transferred in the name of Tilak Raj but numbernotice thereto was given by the transferor respondent number 5 to the appellant insurance companypany for transfer of the insurance policy and the insurance certificate in the name of the transferee i.e. respondent number 1.
5 Bal Krishan had insured his scooter with the appellant insurance companypany for the period 7.3.1989 to 6.3.1990.
The insurance policy companyering the scooter of respondent number5.
Srikrishna, J. The companye issue involved in this appeal is Whether a statutory insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, intended to companyer the risk to life or damage to properties of third parties, would companyer the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle.
Respondents 2 to 4 being the legal heirs wife and minor daughters of the deceased Rajinder Singh moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking companypensation for the death of the deceased Rajinder Singh.
