The liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent as provided under section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the non-production of the insurance policy will not make much difference and would not lead to enhance statutory liability of the insurance company.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-B - SECTION 110-CC - SECTION 95 - SECTION 96 - SECTION 81 - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY - CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION - LUMP SUM DEDUCTION - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION - COMPREHENSIVE POLICY - LIMITS OF LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

A truck parked on the metal road without any lights or reflectors caused an accident with a car coming from behind. The truck driver and the car driver were found to be negligent, with the truck driver being 75% liable and the car driver 25% liable. The insurance company was held liable for Rs. 50,000/- out of the total compensation of Rs. 1,19,806/- awarded to the claimants, the wife, son, and father of the deceased car driver.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the truck driver was negligent in parking the truck on the metal road without any lights or reflectors, while the car driver was negligent in driving at a fast speed in poor visibility. The court apportioned the liability at 75% for the truck driver and 25% for the car driver. The court also held that the insurance company was liable only for Rs. 50,000/- as per the limits of liability specified in the policy. The court further held that the compensation awarded was not excessive and that the deduction of 25% on account of lump sum payment was justified. However, the court allowed the claimants' cross-objection for compensation on account of loss of love and affection and consortium, and also disallowed the deduction of 25% on account of lump sum payment on the balance amount.
Issues: 1. Which party can be said to be negligent for causing the accident and if both are negligent then what is the extent of their liability? 2. Is the insurance company liable for the entire amount of compensation awarded? 3. Is the compensation awarded excessive or low? In deciding this it is to be seen whether deduction on account of lump sum payment is proper and whether pension received by the claimants could be deducted from the amount which could be said to be the contribution to the family? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of mental suffering and loss of love and affection and loss of consortium? 5. Is the interest awarded proper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The liability of the truck driver and the car driver was apportioned at 75% and 25% respectively, considering the negligence of the truck driver in parking the truck without lights and the negligence of the car driver in driving at a fast speed in poor visibility. 2. The insurance company was held liable only for Rs. 50,000/- as per the limits of liability specified in the policy, and not for the entire amount of compensation awarded. 3. The compensation awarded was not excessive, and the deduction of 25% on account of lump sum payment was justified. However, the deduction of 25% on account of lump sum payment was disallowed on the balance amount, considering the steep fall in the value of money and the rising inflation. 4. The claimants were entitled to compensation on account of loss of love and affection and consortium, as it is a just compensation allowable under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The interest awarded at 6% per annum from the date of the claim was held to be proper.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellants was dismissed, and the cross-objection of the claimants was accepted to the extent of Rs. 16,000/- on account of loss of love, affection and consortium and Rs. 8,200/- which has not to be deducted on account of lump sum payment. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded was enhanced from Rs. 1,19,806/- to Rs. 1,44,006/-.

JUDGMENT

1. - This Special Appeal, under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, is against the judgment dated August 21, 1984, passed by the learned single Judge of this court. This decision was passed in an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in claim case No. 2 of 1978, decided on 14.12.1979.

2. The present appeal is by the owner and driver of truck No. HYB 426, which was involved in an accident and who have been made liable to pay the compensation to the heirs of the deceased alongwith respondent No. 4. the insurance company in the sum of Rs. 1,19,806/-. The liability of the insurance company has been fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. For the balance amount, the appellants have been held to he jointly and severally responsible.

3. The accident which gave rise to the present claim occurred on July 5, 1977, at about 9.30 p.m. on the Jaipur-Delhi National Highway near Amer. Truck No. HYB 426, driven by the appellant No. 2 was coming from Delhi to Jaipur and so also the car No. IIRI1 213. driven by deceased Raghunath Swaroop Bhatnagar. Being the month of July. it was a rainy day and at 9.30 p.m. it was quite dark. At the time of accident, it was raining and there was water on both sides of the road The driver of the truck stopped his truck on his left side in order to check some noise coming from its engine. At that time the deceased came in his car and he collided with the rear of the standing truck, which according to the claimants was parked on the wrong side, obstructing the traffic and was not displaying red-light to indicate that a vehicle was standing there. Anyone coming from the back could not have any idea that the truck was standing on the road. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that when the deceased reached near Amer. where the accident took place, a vehicle with full headlights was coming from the opposite direction and in order to avoid this on-coming vehicle, the deceased took his car to his left and it was then that it hit the truck which was said to be parked wrongly obstructing the traffic. The deceased who was driving the car sustained injuries and died immediately. Nis widow, son and father preferred a claim petition claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 3.00,000/- under different heads.

4. The claim of the respondent Nos. I to 3 was contested by the appellants as well as the insurance company The case of the appellants is that the driver of the truck stopped it on one side of the road in order to check a noise coming from the truck and a car came at a very fast speed from behind and hit the truck. According to the appellants the parking lights of the truck were switched on and there was no other traffic on the road and the deceased had space to drive his car. It was denied that the accident was caused on account of the mistake or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.

5. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence produced by the parties and held that truck No. HYB 426 was wrongly parked on the metalled road without any lights which amounted to negligence on the part of its driver. At the same time, it was held that the deceased was driving the car at a fast speed, considering the fact that the visibility was poor and it was also raining so he was also guilty of contributory negligence. The negligence of the appellant was assessed at 80% and that of the deceased at 20%. The deceased Raghunath Swaroop, who was an Engineer in the Haryana State Electricity Board, was drawing about Rs. 2,500/- at the time of his death and his age at that time was 52 years. Considering his prospects and expectancy of life, the compensation payable was assessed at Rs. 1,50,408/-, plus Rs. 16,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Out of this 20% was deducted on account of contributory negligence and a sum of Rs. 1,33,000/- was arrived at in order to make it a round figure. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was allowed for the repairs of the car. Thus the total co