Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 2245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: J.P. Singh, J.
United India Insurance Co. - Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Panmeshwari Devi and Ors. - Respondent
FAO No. 390/2000
Decided On: 04.12.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Vishnu Mehra, Adv. along with R.K. Kataria, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant:S.K. Mishra and G.S. Tiwari, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, Section 95, and the determination of limited liability.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act 1939, Section 95 - Liability of Insurance Company - Limited Liability - Judgment discussed the liability of the insurance company and its interpretation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, Section 95
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the United India Insurance Company against the judgment/award passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) Delhi, awarding compensation to the widow and children of the deceased who died in a bus accident. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that its liability was limited.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 15,000 and directed the company to pay the entire amount to the claimants with interest. The court allowed the company to recover the excess amount from the driver and owner of the bus.
Issues: The issues included determining the negligence of the driver, the cause of death, the claimants' status as legal representatives, the liability of the insurance company, and the amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, Section 95, and considered the evidence and arguments presented to determine the limited liability of the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation with interest. The court also allowed the company to recover the excess amount from the driver and owner of the bus.
J.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the United India Insurance Company has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 6.7.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) Delhi, awarding a sum of Rs. 79,200/- to the widow and four children of the deceased. Interest @ 12% per annum was also allowed from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
.2. I have heard Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents. None appeared for respondent No. 6 (Driver) and respondent No. 7 (owner) despite service by publication. They were ex-parte even before the MACT. I have gone through the impugned award and the record.
3. Briefly the facts are that late Dayanand, an agriculturist, aged about 40 years was traveling in a bus on 11.9.1986. The bus was operating under DTC. As Dayanand was getting down the bus from the front door, the driver suddenly started the bus at high speed. Dayanand fell down and was crushed under the wheel of the bus. The learned Judge MACT examined the site plan of the accident spot, post mortem report and oral evidence and held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving.
.4. Widow of the deceased and four children claimed Rs. 10 lacs as compensation. The claim was contested by the insurance company who is appellant in this Court. The following issues were framed:
1. Whether the R-1 was rash and negligent in driving bus No, DEP-6602 on the date, time and place as alleged in the petition? OPP.
2. If so, whether Sh. Daya Nand died due to injuries in the accident as alleged in the petition? OPP.
3. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of the deceased, if so, the only LRs of the deceased? OPP.
4. Whether the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay compensation as per pleas taken by it in its WS? OPR3.
5. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled?
6. Relief.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that may be the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance company did not press issue No. -4 as mentioned by learned Judge MACT but then why the evidence produced by the Insurance company on this issue has been discussed by the MACT in para 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment and it has been held that liability of the company was unlimited. Learned Counsel has argued that the finding is erroneous and against the record. The learned Judge MACT has opined in para 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment that no specific averments were made in the written statement that liability of the company was limited only to Rs. 15,000/-. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that in para 22 of the written statement the company had averred that the liability of the company was subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and the terms of the policy, which terms limit the liability of the appellant to Rs. 15,000/- only.
6. The learned Judge MACT observed that original policy and proposal form were not produced, only a copy was produced but the person who had prepared the copy was not examined and thereforee held that liability of the company was unlimited.
7. Ex.PRW-1/1 is the copy of the Insurance policy. It gives details of premium regarding liability to public risk as follows:
Basic premium Rs. 240/-
Premium for 48 passengers (@ Rs. 12 per passenger) Rs. 576/-
Premium for 2 drivers Rs. 32/-
Premium for 2 cleaners Rs. 75/-
Total Rs. 923/-
Premium for damage to the bus Rs. 1800/-
Total Rs. 2723/-
Less 5% discounts Rs. 270/-
Grand Total Rs. 2453/-
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the premium for limited liability of Rs. 15,000/- was Rs. 12/- per passenger and if the insured wanted to have the cover for unlimited liability he was to pay Rs. 50/- per passenger as premium, as per Ex.PRW1/3 which is the schedule of the tariff. He has submitted that the relevant column in the insurance policy regarding
