Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

342) cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view." (emphasis supplied).

19. It will not be out of place to mention that the judgment in Kamla (supra) and Lehru (supra) were noted by the Supreme Court in its three Judges Bench case in Swaran Singh (supra).

20. In Swaran Singh (supra) The Supreme Court distinguished the three Judges‟ decision in Malla Prakasarao (Supra), holding that the Supreme Court did not have an occasion to consider the general terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance vis-à- vis the liability of the insurer under the Act. Para 103 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

21. Thus, in Swaran Singh (supra) the Supreme Court laid down that Malla Prakasarao (supra) was not an authority on the statutory liability of the Insurance Company.

22. In Swaran Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that the liability of the Insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of the third party was statutory. Before proceeding further, I would like to extract Section 149 hereunder:-

"149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.

30. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700, again a distinction was drawn between own damage claim not involving any third party and the liability in respect of the third party risk. The Supreme Court referred with approval Swaran Singh (supra) and held that Swaran Singh (supra) was rendered in the background of Section 149. In case of own damage, the principle „let the Insurer pay and recover from the Insured‟ did not apply. The Supreme Court held as under:-

82. Admittedly, the Claim Petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Respondents/Claimants to succeed in their Petition were not required to prove the negligence on the part of the driver. It was enough if involvement of the road roller was established.

83. A DD No.27-A was recorded in Police Station Naraina on 23.04.2006 at 10:35 P.M. that a road roller had struck against a lady at Barar Squire Red light and that the driver had been caught at the spot. On the basis of this DD entry, endorsement was made by SI Ratan Singh for registration of a case under Section 279/304-A IPC against Harbhajan Singh son of Swaran Singh the driver of the road roller. Site Plan, copy of which has been placed on record by the Claimants shows the places where the accident took place and where the road roller was found after the accident. The postmortem examination shows that the deceased had a crush injury on her head. The driver of the road roller, Harbhajan Singh (R1W2), in his evidence affidavit Ex.R1W2/A, had denied the involvement of the Road roller in the accident; in the cross examination he admitted that he was not authorized by any authority to drive the road roller on the day of accident. The testimony of this witness does not inspire any confidence, as in his evidence affidavit he stated that it was very dark night on the day of the accident, but on the other hand he states that the deceased fell on the road while crossing the central verge; it is not plausible as to how the driver managed to see the deceased falling when it was completely dark. A perusal through the postmortem report suggests that, it was not possible for a person to merely fall from a central verge, to sustain such grievous injuries including crush injury as mentioned in the postmortem report. All this indicates the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.