UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., LUCKNOW Vs. U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION., LUCKNOW AND ORS. ETC.
LAWS(ALL)-2009-9-89
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 18,2009

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
VERSUS
U. P. State Road Transport Corporation., Lucknow Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-299] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. PINKY [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
SONIKA JAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-146] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.)THESE are 14 appeals filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Barabanki passed on 22.2.2001 in Claim Petition Nos. 163 of 1996, order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/M.A.C.T. Bahraich in M.A.C.T. No. 93/70/2000, order dated 5.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 154/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 147/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 232/70/1998, order dated 6.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 151/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 163/70/1998, order dated 4.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 148/70/1998, order dated 8.5.2006 in Claim Petition No. 153/70/1998, order dated 31.1.2006 in Claim Petition No. 155/70/1998, order dated 10.4.2006 in Claim Petition No. 149/70/1998, order dated 10.3.2006 in Claim Petition No. 150/70/1998, order dated 23.9.2005 in Claim Petition No. 220/70/1998 and order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bahraich in Claim Petition No. 164/70/1998 by which in the accident the buses attached to U.P.S.R.T.C., the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the compensation. Since in all the appeals a common question is involved, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by a common order.
(2.)IN all the cases owner of the buses entered into the contract/agreement with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Sapru Marg, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSRTC") to provide their buses for transportation. The owner of the vehicles admittedly got their vehicles insured through the appellant-Insurance Companies. The UPSRTC has not got such vehicles insured. The question for consideration is that while such buses met with accidents, which, under the terms of the contract, have been provided to UPSRTC, whether the Insurance Company is liable for compensation to the third party to indemnify the liability of the owner of the buses or the UPSRTC.
Heard Sri R.C. Sharma, Ms. Alka Verma and Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri Aqtar Abbas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. and S/Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh and Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in case of accident. The owner is defined by Section 2 (30) of the Act. Under the definition of the owner the person under whose possession the vehicle was, is deemed to be the owner. Under the terms of the agreement between the actual owner of the vehicle and the UPSRTC, the possession and control of the vehicle have been transferred to UPSRTC during the period of contract which is clear from clause (1) of the agreement. Therefore, the UPSRTC is the owner of the vehicle within the definition of owner under the Act for the period of contract. He submitted that under the Insurance Policies, the Insurance Companies undertook to indemnify the liability of the owner who got the vehicle insured. Since the vehicle during the period of contract, was not in possession and control of the actual owner (in short 'insured') but was under the possession and control of UPSRTC. The insured who got the vehicles insured were not the owner within the definition of "owner" under the Act and the UPSRTC was the owner within the definition of the Act and liable for compensation. The Insurance Company has not undertaken, under the Insurance Policies, to indemnify the UPSRTC in respect of their liability, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the payment of compensation for the accident committed during the period of agreements between the insured and the UPSRTC.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.