Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, Appellant
Versus
Jugal Kishore and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 1984, D/- 9-2-1988.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 110-D – Compensation Claim – Appeal by special leave has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., against a judgment of the Delhi High Court in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Respondent, driving a three-wheeler scooter when he met with an accident with bus, driven, Respondent No. 2 and owned Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Respondent – He sustained injuries consequent upon which he made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi against Respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant which was the insurer of the bus aforesaid – Claim of Respondent was contested by the appellant and also by Respondent but proceeded ex parte against Respondent – Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum recoverable jointly and severally from the appellant and Respondent – Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi and asserted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate –Held, Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal – In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof – This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof – This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly – In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof – Court accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence – Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in Civil Appeal would in all probability have been avoided – Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the Court in doing justice between the parties – Obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised – Order accordingly.
Key Points: - The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 20,000/- under Cl. (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act (!) (!) . - The policy document indicated the limit of liability for third-party death or bodily injury as "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939," consistent with the statutory limit (!) (!) . - It is the duty of the party in possession of the policy to produce it, especially for state instrumentalities, to avoid unnecessary litigation and assist the court (!) (!) . - Failure to file a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and High Court was noted as a common practice that can prolong litigation (!) (!) . - The insured vehicle was comprehensively insured, but this did not increase the statutory third-party liability beyond Rs. 20,000/- (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, fixing the liability of the insurance company at Rs. 20,000/- plus interest, with the excess withdrawal by the claimant not refundable (!) (!) . - There was no order as to costs in the appeal (!) (!) .
Judgment
OJHA, J.:- This appeal by special leave has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, against a judgment of the Delhi High Court in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Necessary facts may be stated herein in a nutshell. Shri Jugal Kishore, Respondent No. 1 was, on 15th June, 1969, driving a three-wheeler scooter when he met with an accident with bus No. DLP-3699, driven by Shri Rai Singh, Respondent No. 2 and owned by M/s. Delhi Janata Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Respondent No. 3. He sustained injuries consequent upon which he made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi against Respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant which was the insurer of the bus aforesaid. The claim of Respondent No. 1 was contested by the appellant and also by Respondent No. 3 but proceeded ex parte against Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- recoverable jointly and severally from the appellant and Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi and asserted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. His appeal was allowed by the High Court and the award was modified. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to Respondent No. 1 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim till realisation with costs against the driver as well as the owner of the bus as also against the appellant, Insurance Company.
3. Before granting special leave this Court required the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- namely the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court and permitted Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the same. Special leave was granted on 14th September, 1984 by the following order of this Court :-
"Under the orders of this Court the appellant has deposited Rs. one lac, which is the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. The claimants have withdrawn the amount without furnishing security.
Special leave granted on condition that in the event of reversal of the decision of the High Court, the said amount shall not be refunded by the claimants. Stay of further execution of the award confirmed.
4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the statutory provision contained in this behalf in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act as it stood on the date of accident namely 15th June, 1969 which happens to be prior to 2nd March, 1970, the date of commencement of Amending Act 56 of 1969, no award in excess of Rs. 20,000/- could have been made against the appellant. Before dealing with the submission we may point out that the policy under which the bus aforesaid was insured had not been filed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court. A photostat copy of the policy has, however, been filed in this Court and learned counsel for the respondents did not have objection to the same being admitted in evidence. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time reads as under:-
"95. (1) ... ... ......
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely :-
(a) ... ... ... ...
(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees; and in respect of passengers a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, and four thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver or two thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
