SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 189

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
M/s. Sheikhupura Transport Co., Ltd., (in all appeals), Appellant
Versus
Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. and another etc; Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 501 to 504 of 1967, D/- 16-3-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and Mr. K. R. Nagaraja, Advocate, for Appellants (In all Appeals); M/s. Hardeo Singh and H. L. Kapur, Advocates (for No. 1) In C. As. Nos. 501, 502 of 1967; (For No. 4) In C. A. No. 503 of 1967; and (For No. 10) In C. A. No. 504 of 1967, for Respondents; M/s. S. K. Nagga, B. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, Advocates, (For No. 2) In C. A. No. 501 of 1967; (For Nos. 1 to 8) In C. A. No. 504 of 1967(For No. 2) In C. A. No. 502 of 1967 and (For Nos. 1 and 2) In C. A. No. 503 of 1967, for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.K.Bagga, H.L.Kapur, HARDEV SINGH, K.L.Mehta, K.R.NAGARAJA, S.Baggar, S.K.Bagga, S.K.MEHTA

Headnote:

Workmen s Compensation Act. 1923 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 95 (2), 94 and 95 (1) - Vehicles accident - Died on spot - Claim compensation - Appellant while travelling from to met with an accident at about 9 a. m. - As a result of this accident, two persons namely died on spot and some others received minor injuries - Legal representatives of the deceased persons applied for compensation before tribunal appointed under Motor Vehicles Act - Their claim was opposed by appellant as well as by insurance company - Overruling objections of appellant as well as insurance company, tribunal found that accident was due to negilgence of the driver and therefore claimants were entitled to compensation - Tribunal computed compensation due to legal representatives - Out of that sum it determined compensation due to the widow to his daughter to his another daughter - In the case, it computed total compensation payable and granted that sum to legal representatives - It directed that entire sum payable by appellant should be paid by insurance company - Whether contract of insurance entered into between appellant and insurance company provided for payment of enhanced amount in case – Held, Court are dealing with a vehicle in which more than six passengers were allowed to be carried - Hence maximum liability impose under S. 95 (2) on insurer is Rs. 2,000/- per passenger though the total liability may go upto is also view taken by High Court - Therefore Court have to see whether contract of insurance entered into between appellant and insurance company provided for payment of enhanced amount in case owner of bus involved in an accident is required by decree of a court to pay any higher amount as compensation - Opening words of this clause "subject to limit of liability Company" evidently refer to limit prescribed under S. 95 (2) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act - No clause in insurance policy specifically providing for the payment of any amount higher than that fixed under S. 95 (2) (b) was brought to our notice - Reading all these provisions together, it is clear that statutory liability of insurer to indemnify insured is as prescribed in S. (2) - Hence High Court was right in its conclusion that liability of insurer in present case only extends up each, in the case - Appeals dismissed

Judgment

HEGDE, J.: - A passenger bus belonging to the appellant while travelling from Ludhiana to Raikot met with an accident at about 9 a. m. on February 11, 1959. As a result of this accident, two persons namely Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath died on the spot and some others received minor injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased persons applied for compensation before the tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Their claim was opposed by the appellant as well as by the insurance company. Overruling the objections of the appellant as well as the insurance company, the tribunal found that the accident was due to the negilgence of the driver and therefore the claimants were entitled to compensation. The tribunal computed the compensation due to the legal representatives of Bachan Singh at Rs. 18,000/-. Out of that sum it determined the compensation due to the widow at Rs. 8,000/-; Rs. 4,000/- to his daughter Harbans Kaur and Rs. 6,000/- to his another daughter Balbir Kaur. But as the daughters had not made their claims within the prescribed time, it disallowed the compensation due to them and only granted a decree in favour of the widow of Bachan Singh. In the case of Narinder Nath, it computed the total compensation payable at Rs. 18,000/- and granted that sum to the legal representatives of Narinder Nath. It directed that the entire sum payable by the appellant should be paid by the insurance company. The insurance company as well as the legal representatives of the deceased persons appealed to the High Court. The High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal representatives of both Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath from Rs. 18,000/- to Rupees 36,000/-. It condoned the delay in making the claim by the daughters of Bachan Singh and consequently made the entire sum payable to his legal representatives. It also allowed the appeal of the insurance company and limited the amount payable by the insurance company to Rs. 2,000/- in the case of each one of the deceased persons. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, these appeals have been brought by special leave.

2. Now coming to the enhancement made by the High Court both Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath were 42 to 43 years old at the time of their death; both the tribunal and the High Court have come to the conclusion that Bachan Singh had annual income of about Rs. 9,000/-. Out of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- was his income from immovable property; that income continued to accrue to the benefit of his wife and children; therefore only the income other than the income from immovable property which Bachan Singh was earring from his contract was taken into consideration. The High Court has come to the conclusion that Bachan Singh must have been spending at least Rs. 200/on his family every month. It must be remembered mat Bachan Singh had to marry two daughters. Therefore whatever he might have been able to save after meeting the family expenses and his own the same would have been utilised for the marriage expenses of the daughters. Both the tribunal and the High Court have computed the loss to the family of Bachan Singh by capitalising the benefit that the family was getting from him during his lifetime. The High Court did not accept the computation of the tribunal that Bachan Singh would have spent only Rs. 100/- on his family during his lifetime. We think the High Court was right in its conclusion. Taking into consideration the total income of Bachan Singh as well as the requirements of the family, it is reasonable to hold that he would have spent at least Rs. 200/- per month on his family. We cannot also overlook the fact that Bachan Singh in all reasonable possibility would have been able to earn more in the years to come, if he had not died.

3. It is true that Bachan Singh s daughters were not made parties to the petition filed by the widow of Bachan Singh, when she filed that petition, but later on they were impleaded. By the time they were implea




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top