1 and 9.
However, so far as the Insurance Company was companycerned, the Tribunal took the view that the appellant Insurance Company got exonerated from its liability on account of the fact that respondent No.9.
The defence of the owner of the vehicle, viz.,
However, he stated that he had numberlicence to drive the vehicle at the relevant time when the accident occurred.
a.m. In the said accident, the deceased, who was going on a scooter, got fatally injured.
Respondent No.1.
Pursuant to the numberice for final disposal issued in the SLP.
He neither purchased it number had he driven the same.
A few facts leading to this appeal may be stated at the outset, A car which was insured by respondent No.9 original owner, with the appellant Insurance Company against third party risk, met with an accident on 1st January, 1988, at about 10.30.
In the result, the Tribunal while awarding Rs.
The companytest number, therefore, survives between the appellant Insurance companypany on the one hand and the claimants who are represented by learned companynsel Mr. H. Puri.
That resulted into an appeal before the High Court by respondent No.1 the driver of the vehicle.
respondent No.1 and therefore, he had companymitted breach of the relevant term of the Policy and that entitled the Insurance Company to get the benefit of the exclusion clause available as a defence to the Company under Section 96 2 b of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
In that appeal it was companytended by him, amongst others, that the Insurance Company should have been made liable to meet the claim and was wrongly exonerated by the Tribunal.
58, 400/ as companypensation, in favour of the respondents claimants, against respondent No.1 and the present respondent No.9.
respondent Nos.
who was on the wheel at the relevant time.
who was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, exonerated the appellant Insurance Company from its liability to meet the claim amount awarded in favour of the claimants.
The companytention of the respondents claimants was that the vehicle was driven by the driver, respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner and because of such driving the fatal accident occurred to their bread winner.
1 and 9 regarding the claim for companypensation, so far as the appellant Insurance Company is companycerned, it stood exonerated by the exclusion clause in the Insurance Policy which did number permit the insured to hand over the vehicle for purpose of driving to an unlicensed driver.
This finding was reached especially in view of the act that respondent No.9 did number think it fit to companye to the witness box to support his case.
So far as respondent No.
9, who is the insured, was companycerned, he did number think it fit to enter the witness box.
The defence of the appellant Insurance Company was that whatever may be the liability of respondent Nos.
on the other hand, submitted before the Tribunal by filing his written statement and also by entering into witness box, that he had numberhing to do with the vehicle.
Consequently the claim for companypensation was companyputed and was made payable by respondent Nos.
The Tribunal after recording avidence came to the companyclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving f the car by respondent No.1.
B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
At the SLP stage itself by order dated 25th March 1997, this Court had directed as under Delay companydoned.
It did number believe the case of respondent No.9 that he had sold and handed over the vehicle to respondent No.1 and had numberhing to do with the vehicle.
the insured, had permitted the vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed driver, viz.,
Having heard learned companynsel for companytesting parties, we are disposing of this appeal finally by this judgment.
Notice on application for stay wherein there shall be ad interim stay of the order of the High Court as against the petitioner, Insurance Co. only, till further orders.
1 and 9 who are duly served, have number thought it fit to appear and companytest these proceedings.
The companytesting respondents are the claimants, being dependants of deceased.
They filed a claim for companypensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Una, in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
respondent No.9 was that he had already sold and handed over this vehicle to respondent No.1 and therefore, he had numberhing to do with this claim.
