Back
2008(7) Supreme 515
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. — Appellant
versus
A.N. Subbulakshmi & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5681 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26255/04]
Decided on : 16-09-08
(2002) 2 SCC 78 – Relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
1. An Order was passed by High Court herein in the instant case directing appellant insurance company to make payment of compensation amounts to claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident excess amounts paid over and above its liability under the insurance policy by instituting appropriate actions against them. Matter had arisen from an unfortunate accident in which two lives were lost.
2. Present Appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Relying upon decision in case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C .M. Jaya & Ors., held that under Section 95(2)(a) of the Act even in case of a comprehensively insured vehicle liability of insurer was limited to Rs.50, 000/- (raised to Rs.1,50,000=00 with effect from 1 October 1982). An unlimited or a higher liability than statutory liability of the insurer would arise only in case there is a separate contract and payment of additional premium by owner of vehicle. Impugned direction of High Court was held unsustainable in law. In terms of an interim order passed in appeal, appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.50, 000/- before Trial Court.Held open to claimants to withdraw that amount. The balance amount in terms of High Court judgment held payable by owner of lorry, unless judgment of High Court was modified in any appeal preferred by lorry’s owner. Appeals allowed.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the Insurance Company are on a limited issue insofar as in the order of the High Court coming under appeal the appellant is directed to make payment of the compensation amounts to the claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident excess amounts paid over and above its liability under the insurance policy by instituting appropriate actions against them.
3. The matter arises from an unfortunate accident in which two lives were lost. On 14 May, 1981 at about 6.30 in the morning a head-on collision between an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MDO 7789 and a lorry bearing Registration No. MDR 3106 took place on the Trichy - Chennai highway near Thozhuthur. As a result of the collision the Ambassador Car was badly smashed and turned turtle. Its owner, Annamalai, who was on the driver’s seat died on the spot. Another person, namely, Sigappi, aged about 24 years who worked as Annamalai’s Secretary and who was sitting on the rear seat along with the latter’s son was thrown out of the car and she too died on the spot. However, Annamalai’s wife and daughter sitting on the front seat and his son sitting on the rear seat survived. In the accident the truck also suffered substantial damage.
4. In regard to the accident three claim cases came to be filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. MACTOP No.198 of 1982 was filed by the owner of the lorry, M/s. Aruppukottai Sri Jaya Vilas Pvt. Ltd. claiming compensation of Rs.58, 300/- for the damage caused to the lorry MDR 3106 in the accident, allegedly resulting from the rash and negligent driving of the car MDO 7789. The claim of the lorry’s owner was resisted by the legal representatives of the deceased Annamalai. Another claim petition, MACTOP no.625 of 1981 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sigappi against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming damages for her death. A third claim petition, MACTOP No.627 of 1981 was filed by the wife and children of the deceased Annamalai, the owner of the car, against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming a sum of Rs.10,04,600/- as compensation for his death.
5. The Tribunal by order dated 22 January, 1986 found and held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, Annamalai. There was no mistake, rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. He accordingly rejected the claims instituted by the heirs of the deceased Annamalai and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Siggapi. Further, in accordance with its finding, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the owner of the lorry but instead of Rs.58, 300/- as claimed in the petition, awarded the smaller amount of Rs.14,100/- with 7% interest to be recovered from the assets left by the deceased Annamalai in the hands of his heirs, impleaded as respondents in the claim petition.
6. Against the order passed by the Tribunal three separate appeals came to be filed in the Madras High Court. These appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 12 December, 2003. The High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal as to the cause of the accident and on a detailed examination of all the evidences on record came to hold and find as follows:
“As seen from the file, B.7, B.8 as well as B.1 and A.1, on a consideration of the oral evidence, this court holds that the accident has not been caused exclusively by the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car, but the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, namely, ambassador car and the lorry driver. This court holds that the contributory negligence on the part of the lorry driver could be fixed at 50% and that of the ambassador car at 50% as seen from the place of impact, damages caused to the vehicles as well as Exs.B.7 and B.8. The points 1 and 2 are answered abov
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
