IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Order and decree of the learned additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad awardind rs. 95,000/- towards compensation in O. P. No. 11/83 on his file. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance Company, which is the 2nd respondent in the O. P. has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the tribunal erred in awarding compensation exceeding Rs. 50,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE first respondent filed O. P. u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,36,000/- alleging that on 11-9-1982 at about 4-00 p. m. he was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing ATY 9815 from ravindra Bharati towards Nampally ; when he reached the bus stop near police Control Room a lorry bearing registration No. APM 532 (hereinafter referred to as the accident vehicle), owned by the 2nd respondent in the appeal came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries ; he was shifted to the Osmania General Hospital where he was treated initially ; later he was treated by Dr. Vedaprakash, Hyderabad and it is further alleged that he sustained permanent disability due to the said accident. The owner of the accident vehicle, having entered appearance, through an advocate, has not chosen to file any counter and the O. P. was resisted by the Insurance company. Along with other pleas, the insurance Company has specifically pleaded that P. W. 1 in no event is entitled to over and above Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation even though rashness and negligence is established on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court held that the accident vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

( 4 ) IT is to be seen that the specific plea of the appellant-Insurance company is that the statutory liability of the Insurance Company is to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only and hence the award passed by the Lower Court granting Rs. 95,000/- towards compensation is not according to law.

( 5 ) IT is true that under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") as it stood on 11-9-1982, the liability of the Insurance Company is only Rs. 50,000/- in all and consequently it is submitted that any amount awarded over and above Rs. 50,000/- is not according to the provisions of Section 95 of the Act. Section 95 of the Act along with some other provisions of the Act were amended under the amendment Act No. 47/82 (hereinafter referred to as the "amending act". ). Under Section 13 of the Amending Act which came into force on and from 1-10-1982, the liability of the Insurance Company under Sec. 95 of the Act in question is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. But it is to be seen that the Amending Act came into force from 1-10-1982. As such it is to be seen whether the claimants are entitled to the benefits of the Amending act.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further it is to be seen that some comment is made about the non-filing of the Insurance Policy by the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the claimant relying upon National Insurance co. Ltd. , New Delhi vs. Jugal Kishore submits that a responsible and a statutory body like the Insurance Company should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof, the insurance Companies which are instrumentalities of the State are under an obligation to act fairly and it is under on obligation to file a copy of the insurance Policy. This decision has no application to the case on hand since the claimant has already filed a copy of the Insurance Policy which the Insurance Company has not chosen to question. Thus when the policy was already filed by the claimant, which the Insu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document