Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THIS letters patent appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgement of the learned Single Judge in FAO. 141/91 and CM. 372/92 dated 9. 5. 1995, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed by the owner/insured and held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and not limited to Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as held by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The MACT had based on the policy of insurance and the documents filed on record, viz. the proposal form, insurance policy cover note, renewal endorsement, etc. , held that the liability of the appellant insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000. 00. It may be noted that the appellant had earlier moved the learned Single Judge with an application for re- hearing, praying that the impugned judgement dated 9. 5. 1995 had been passed without hearing the appellant s counsel. The learned Single Judge granted the re-hearing, but vide its order dated 28. 7. 1995 held that no change was warranted in the impugned judgement dated 9. 5. 1995.

( 3 ) THE quantum of compensation is not in issue in the present appeal filed by the insurance company. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly noted:-

" (I) One Nirmal Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, died in a road accident on 14. 12. 1984. The legal representatives, viz. Ms. Kamla Devi, wife; Kumari Deepali, minor daughter; Digvijay Singh, minor son; Mahadevo, mother; and Kanwar Singh, father; filed the claim for compensation, claiming Rs. 10,00,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

" (II) The owner and the driver in their written statement denied their liability and the factum of the accident and the involvement of their vehicle. However, they admitted the insurance of the vehicle with the appellant. The appellant insurance company had also based on the information received from the insurer, denied the liability and, in any case, while admitting the insurance of the vehicle pleaded that it was a commercial vehicle and the liability of the insurance company was limited in terms of the policy. "

" (III) The owner did not produce the original insurance policy in evidence. The appellant insurance company had examined two witnesses, viz. Mr. R. S. Fulliya and Mr. Ram Kunwar who produced and tendered in evidence the proposal form, the cover note and a true copy of the policy. However, these were for the period from 18. 4. 1982 to 17. 4. 1983, i. e. prior to the date of the accident in question. The appellant also produced in evidence the renewal endorsement for the period in question, viz. 20. 4. 1984 to 19. 4. 1985 (Exhibit RW. 3/3 ). These documents clearly showed that the owner/insured had paid premium of Rs. 240. 00 for third party risk and another sum of Rs. 16. 00 to cover the risk for driver and cleaner, i. e. a total of Rs. 256. 00. The appellant s contention was that the aforesaid premium covered limited liability upto Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as per the tariff. A suggestion was made to the witness during cross-examination that on payment of extra premium of Rs. 4. 00 the liability of the insurance company could be enhanced and/or made unlimited. The witness denied the suggestion that the policy for the period 20. 4. 1984 to 19. 4. 1985 was issued covering unlimited third party risk. The Development Officer of respondent No. 4 was also examined who deposed that the proposal form had been signed by him and that the appellant was fully advised of the rates of premium and that he had taken the insurance for a limited third party cover. "

" (IV) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after recording evidence on the question of negligence had disbelieved the version of the owner and the driver and awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 4,49,600. 00 with interest @9% from the date of the petition. The learned Tribunal, however, on consideration of the proposal form, insurance policy and renewal endorsement held that the liability of the in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document