JUDGMENT
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.
1. This appeal, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated June 3, 1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in M.A.C.T. Petition No. 17 of 1982, awarding Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were the parents of the deceased, Sita Ram, on the finding that the accident took place because of the negligent and reckless driving of the bus No. RBL 1001 by its driver Laddoo, respondent No. 3. The aforesaid bus had been given to the State of Rajasthan in connection with the panchayat elections.
2. The claim petition was contested by the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., on the ground that since the bus had been given to the State of Rajasthan for panchayat elections, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation towards damages suffered on account of the death of Sita Ram.
3. On the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed. The Tribunal held by its award dated June 3, 1988 that the bus was insured with the appellant and that the same was being driven, at the time of the accident, by the driver of its owner. The Tribunal also found that the driver was negligent and, consequently, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to get compensation, which was determined at Rs. 40,000/-.
4. Against the aforesaid award this appeal has been filed by the insurance company.
5. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the insurance company could file the appeal, defences open to an insurer being limited by Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
6. The insurer cannot, in the appeal, question the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal as to manner in which the accident happened, or its estimate of compensation awarded, or the liability of the insurer. But, it can, certainly, challenge the correctness of the award, if it is in contravention of Section 96 (1) of the Act. This is not to transgress the limits of Sub-section (2) of Section 96. Ground of the appeal in this case travelled beyond the defences open to the insurance company under Sub-section (2) of Section 96.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company urged that as the bus had been given by its owner to the State of Rajasthan for the panchayat elections, for the accident happening during that course, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The appellant filed the policy of insurance of the bus, which was a comprehensive policy. In this policy there is no mention that its owner could not give the same to the State Government on being requisitioned. The relevant clause of the policy reads: “Provided the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle…”. The Tribunal found that the accident took place when the vehicle was being driven by the driver of its owner. Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that, as the vehicle had been requisitioned by the State of Rajasthan, the liability for payment of compensation was that of the State and not of the owner of the vehicle. The submission is not correct. The policy has undertaken to pay the compensation in the event the owner of the vehicle is found vicariously liable to give the same. There was no breach of specific condition in the policy which excluded letting out the vehicle to the State for election purposes.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Devki Devi Tiwari v. Raghunath Sahai Chatrath 1978 ACJ 169 (Allahabad) and urged that as in that case the insurance company was found not liable to pay the compensation, applying the principles laid down in that case this court must find in agreement with the above decision that the appellant, insurance company, was also not liable for payment of compensation. The Allahabad (Sic.) and General Insurance Co. Ltd. to be liable to pay compensation. No principle in that case had been laid down to support the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle having been requisitioned by the State, there is no liability of the insurance company.
9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Ramulamma 1989 ACJ 596 (AP), since the policy had expressly excluded the liability during the period of requisition, the court held that it was the District Collector, who, under whose control the vehicle was, was liable to pay compensation. The appellant’s counsel was unable to show any term contained in the policy, which excluded the insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation.
10. Furthermore, what is important in this case to be pointed out is that the vehicle was being driven by the driver of the owner and, as such, he was the agent of the owner. I have already mentioned that the appellant, who had only limited defences open to it, could file an appeal only on that ground. But, as the appeal travelled beyond Subsection (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on this ground it is liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.