Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
MANJU SAWHNEY - Respondent
First Appeal Order 215 of 1981
Decided On : 01/08/1986
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - CLAIM PETITION - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - LIMITED LIABILITY POLICY - PROOF OF INSURANCE POLICY - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - RULES OF EVIDENCE - UBERRIMA FIDES - PROPOSAL FORM - TRANSFER OF PERMIT - JOINT VENTURE - RETRIAL - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
A claim petition was filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver of a mini bus, the owners of the vehicle, and the insurer of the vehicle for compensation arising out of an accident. The insurance company claimed that its liability was limited to Rs. 50,000.00 based on the terms of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company failed to prove the insurance policy in accordance with law. The court held that the limited liability policy did not stand proved and that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. The court also found that the owners of the vehicle had transferred the permit to ply the vehicle in violation of the rules and that they were equally liable to make good the claim of the claimants.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company's liability was limited to Rs. 50,000.00? 2. Whether the owners of the vehicle were liable for the claim of the claimants? 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle? 4. Whether the compensation amount should be enhanced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company failed to prove the insurance policy in accordance with law. The court relied on the fact that the insurance company did not produce the original policy or the proposal form, and that the copy of the policy that was produced was not a true copy. The court also found that the insurance company had not acted in uberrima fides by failing to disclose the limited liability clause to the insured. 2. The court held that the owners of the vehicle were equally liable to make good the claim of the claimants because they had transferred the permit to ply the vehicle in violation of the rules. The court found that the owners were aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal and that they had taken a chance of no award being enforced against them. 3. The court dismissed the driver's appeal, holding that he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore liable for the amount of claim decreed against him. 4. The court held that this was not a fit case for enhancement of compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the driver and the cross-objections filed by the claimants. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and that the owners of the vehicle were equally liable. The court also held that the interest payable on the amount awarded would be twelve per cent per annum from two months after the date of the award.
( 1 ) ON 6. 4. 1976 at about 1. 45 p. m. a scooter was being driven by Krishan Lal Sawhney, along the Netaji Subhash Marg. He was proceeding from Darya Ganj side towards the Red Fort. The appellant Mahinder Singh was driving a mini bus DLP 5724 in the same direction as the scooter driven by K. L. Sawhney. The mini bus DLP 5724 hit the scooter driven by K. L. Sawhney from behind. After hitting the scooter the mini bus driven by the appellant Mahinder Singh, dragged the scooter, for a distance of about 50 to 70 feet.
( 2 ) AS a result of this collision, K. L. Sawhney died on the spot. K. L. Sawhney was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was a M. A. ,ll. B. and was, on the date of the collision, 47 years of age. A claim petition, under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the appellant Mahinder Singh, the driver of the mini bus DLP 5724; M/s. Upkar Singh and Sons, the owners of the vehicle; and M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , the insurer of the vehicle.
( 3 ) AS regards M/s. Upkar Singh and Sons, two addresses were given. One address was: 1488, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi, and the other was a house address: C-453, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
( 4 ) IN the claim petition it was asserted that the mini bus DLP 5724 was rashly and negligently driven at a high speed along the Netaji Subhash Marg, when it hit the back of the scooter being driven by K. L. Sawhney, that the front of the mini bus hit the rear of the scooter. It was further asserted in the claim petition that as a result of the collision K. L. Sawhney suffered multiple fractures on the body and he died on the spot.
( 5 ) THE New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3 filed a written statement on 27th February, 1978.
( 6 ) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the driver of the mini bus and the owner of the mini bus.
( 7 ) THE following vakalatnamas have been filed as per record:
(1) One vakalatnama was filed by Mahinder Singh dated 29th November, 1976, appointing Mr. S. M. Suri and Mr. Karan Bal, Advocates (at page 227 ). (2) Another vakalatnama was filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appointing Mr. S. M. Suri and Mr. Karan Bal, Advocates dated 29th November, 1976 (at page 229 ). (3) One vakalatnama was filed on 31st May, 1977 by Sukhdarshan Singh, appointing Mr. K. K. Sood, Advocate (at page 231 ). (4) Another vakalatnama was filed on 31st May, 1977, by Mahinder Singh, appointing Mr. K. K. Sood, Advocate (at page 233 ). (5) Yet another vakalatnama was filed by Mahinder Singh on 22nd February, 1980, appointing Mr. S. M. Suri, Advocate (at page 237 ).
( 8 ) ON the pleading of parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1? OPP. (2) To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. (3) Whether respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount on account of defences raised in the written statement? OPP. (4) Relief.
( 9 ) REGARDING issue No. 1, I agree with the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) that the bus DLP 5724 was being rashly and negligently driven for the reasons stated by him.
( 10 ) AS regards the issue of rash and negligent driving, I would like to mention that the photographs which show that part of Netaji Subhash Marg on which the two vehicles involved in the accident being Exh. public witness 8/1 to Exh. public witness 8/5, show the first point of impact between the the mini bus to be on one of the two white lines which divide this part of the Netaji Subhash Marg into three traffic lanes. The photographs indicate that after the impact with the scooter the bus swerved further towards the right and finally came to rest very near the central dividing verge. At the place where the accident took place, Netaji Subhash Marg is a two way road, divided by a central verge.
( 11 )
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
