LexGURU GOVEKAR versus MISS FILOMENA F. LOBO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
GURU GOVEKAR
v.
MISS FILOMENA F. LOBO & ORS.
MAY 6, 1988
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Whether an insurer who has issued an
insurance policy in respect of a person against a liability which may be
incurred in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage
to any property of a third party arising out of use of a motor vehicle in a
C public place, is liable to pay compensation when liability arises when
motor vehicle is in the custody of a repairer.
A car owned by a firm was entrusted to Guru, proprietor of M/s
Auto Electrical Works, for electrical repairs. The car was insured with
D
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as required under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 '('The Act'). When Momad Donttach an employee of the
repairer, was repairing the car, the respondent No. 1 was knocked
down when the car dashed against the said respondent as a result
whereof she bad to be hospitalised and treated for injuries. The respon-
dent No. l instituted a claim petition under section 1111-A of the Act
E
F
G
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, impleading ttie firm-the
owner of the car-Guru, the repairer, Momad Douttach, the mechanic,
and the insurer-M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-as respondents. The
respondents contested the petition.
The Tribunal passed its award, allowing a compensation of
Rs.90,000 to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries snffered by her,
payable jointly and severaUy by the insurer and all the other respon-
dents. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the insurer and Guru
filed appeals before the High Court, which allowed the appeal of the
insurer, however, holding that under section 92 A of the Act, the in-
snrer was liable to pay to the extent of Rs. 7 ,500. Guru's appeal was
dismissed, holding that he and his mechanic Momad Donttach alone
were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, i.e. the entire
sum awarded minus Rs. 7 ,500 above said. Aggrieved by the decision of
the High Conrt. Gnru moved this Conrt for relief by special leave.
Allowing the appeal and modifying the order of the High Court,
H
the Court,
170
GURU GOVEKAR v. F. LOBO
171
HELD: The only question of law arising for consideration
was whether the insurer was liable to pay the compensation to the
claimant, which has to be resolved in the light of the provisions of the ·
Act. [I 75 B, C]
If a policy is taken in respect of a motor vehicle from an insurer in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act, the
insurer is under an obligation to pay the compensation payable to a
third party on account of any injury to his/her person, property or to a
legal representative of the third party in case of death of the third party
caused by use of the vehicle at a public place. The liability to pay the
said compensation arises when the insured is using the vehicle in a
public place. It also arises when the insured has caused or allowed
any other person (including an independent contractor) to use his
vehicle in a public place and the death of or injury to the person or
property of a third party is caused on account of the use of the said
vehicle during such period, unless such other person has himself taken
out a policy of insurance to cover the liability arising out of such an
accident. [I76E-G]
Io this case, neither Guru Govekar, the repairer, nor his
mechanic Momad Donttach had taken a policy of insurance covering
the liability to pay compensation payable to a third party, when a motor
vehicle taken for repairs from its owner has caused the death of or
injury to a third party. When the owner of a motor vehicle entrusts his
vehicle to a repairer to carry out repairs, he is allowing the repairer to
use his vehicle in that connection. It is also implicit in the said trans-
action that unless there is any contract to the contrary, the owner of the
vehicle also causes or allows any servant of the repairer, engaged in the
work of repairs to use the vehicle in connection with the work of repairs
and when such work of repair is being carried out in a public place, if
on account of the negligence of either the repllirer or his employee
engaged in the repair work, a third party dies or suffers injury to his
person or property, the insurer becomes liable .to pay the compensation
under the provisions of the Act. While it may be true that under the
Law of Torts, the owner may not_ be liable on the principleExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.