Mehta Madan Lal vs National Insurance Company LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1983 Supreme(SC) 15

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Mehta Madan Lal, Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1983, D/- 7-1-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Shivpujan Singh, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. Jitendra Sharma and Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
JANARDAN SHARMA, JITENDRA SHARMA, SHIV PUJAN SINGH

Headnote:
Motor accident - Insurnce - Apportioning compensation - It is obvious that order made by High Court apportioning compensation of Rs. 42,000/- awarded to Respondent No. 2 between 1st Respondent Insurance Company with whom vehicle was insured and appellant owner of the vehicle is erroneous because liability for payment of compensation in case of a motor accident is joint and several liability of the insurance company and owner of vehicle the liability of the insurance company being limited to Rupees 50,000/- and this liability cannot be apportioned between insurance company and the owner of vehicle – Held, Court therefore, allow appeal and set aside order of High Court only in so far as it seeks to apportion the liability for payment of compensation of Rupees 42,000/- between appellant and 1st Respondent and direct that 1st Respondent as also appellant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay amount of compensation of Rupees 42,000/- awarded by Tribunal and confirmed by High Court - Appeal will stand disposed of accordingly

ORDER :- It is obvious that the order made by the High Court apportioning the compensation of Rs. 42,000/- awarded to Respondent No. 2 between 1st Respondent Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured and the appellant owner of the vehicle is erroneous because the liability for payment of compensation in case of a motor accident is the joint and several liability of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle the liability of the insurance company being limited to Rupees 50,000/- and this liability cannot be apportioned between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court only in so far as it seeks to apportion the liability for payment of compensation of Rupees 42,000/- between the appellant and the 1st Respondent and direct that the 1st Respondent as also the appellant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rupees 42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1983 SC 1136

Click Here to Read the rest of this document