1987 Supreme(Raj) 913
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.K.Mathur, J.
Meera Devi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Depot Manager, U.P.R.C. and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 176, 190 and 191 of 1983.
Decided On : 27-11-1987
The burden of proof is on the insurance company to prove its statutory liability by placing the insurance policy on the record.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 95(2)(A) - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADVERSE INFERENCE - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
A bus of the U.P. Roadways and a truck collided, resulting in the death of one passenger and injuries to another. The heirs of the deceased and the injured passenger filed claim petitions against the drivers and owners of both vehicles and the insurance company that insured the truck. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the heirs of the deceased and to the injured passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bus of the U.P. Roadways was not being driven rashly or negligently or at an excessive speed. The court also found that the insurance company did not produce a copy of the insurance policy showing its liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as per Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Issues: 1. Whether the bus of the U.P. Roadways was being driven rashly or negligently or at an excessive speed? 2. Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation beyond the outer limit of Rs. 50,000/- as per the terms of the insurance policy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bus of the U.P. Roadways was not being driven rashly or negligently or at an excessive speed based on the statements of witnesses and the finding of the Tribunal. 2. The court held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation beyond the outer limit of Rs. 50,000/- as per the terms of the insurance policy because the insurance company did not produce a copy of the policy to prove its statutory liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the heirs of the deceased in part and increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,20,000/- with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The court rejected the cross-objections of Gopal Dass, the injured passenger, and the appeals filed by the insurance company and the cross-objection of Nemi Chand, the owner of the truck.
JUDGMENT
1. - All these three appeals arise out of the common award dated 29.7.1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in the two claim petitions filed one by Meera Devi along with other heirs of deceased Purushottam and another by Gopal Dass, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment along with cross-objections filed by Nemi Chand in Appeal No. 176 of 1983 and by Gopal Dass in Appeal No. 191 of 1983.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to these appeals, are that on 25.10.1979 the bus bearing No. URB 1575 belonging to the U.P. Roadways was coming from Brindavan to Udaipur. At about 8.30 in the evening when this bus was negotiating town near Bhagwan Da Gram a truck bearing No. RSY 4036 came from opposite direction and struck against the bus as a result of which, passengers Purushottam and Gopal Dass received serious injuries. Both were immediately taken by another bus of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which came there to the hospital. But Purushottam died and Gopal Dass could survive on account of proper medical treatment. The heirs of deceased Purushottam filed a claim petition on account of the death of Purushottam and Gopal Dass filed a claim petition for compensation for injuries received by him in this very accident. The claim petitions were filed against the driver and owner of the bus as well as of the truck and the insurance company which insured the truck. The claimants examined a number of witnesses. Likewise the non-claimants also examined a number of witnesses. The relevant witnesses will be referred while discussing the arguments. After considering over the matter the Tribunal decreed the claim of the wife and others of deceased Purushottam, i.e., Meera Devi and others to the extent of Rs. 72,000/- and in case of Gopal Dass the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him. Aggrieved against this award, the claimants Meera Devi and others have filed the present Appeal No. 176 of 1983 on the ground that the U.P. Roadways Corporation should also be held liable as the driver of the bus of the U.P. Roadways was also equally negligent. A cross-objection has also been filed in this appeal by Nemi Chand, the owner of the truck on the ground that in fact the driver of the U.P. Roadways was negligent. As such the U.P. Roadways shall also be saddled with the liability of paying the compensation. The insurance company has filed the appeals bearing Nos. 190 and 191 of 1983 on the ground that their liability is only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Gopal Dass has also filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by the insurance company for enhancement of the compensation.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as the Respondents. First taking the appeal of Meera Devi. In this case, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellants Meera Devi and others, has taken me through the statements of AW 5 Gopal Dass who was injured and NAW 4 Ram Bharoselal, driver of the bus. Learned Counsel has submitted that as per the statement of Gopal Dass the bus driver of the U.P. Roadways was also driving the vehicle at a fairly high speed. According to the statement of NAW 4 Ram Bharoselal, driver of the bus the distance between Brindavan and Udaipur is 1350 km. (Sic.) and he has to cover the distance in 16 hours. Learned Counsel thus submitted that from these facts it is apparent that the driver of the bus has to cover the distance of 1350 km. (Sic.) in 16 hours as such the driver has to drive the bus with an excessive speed so as to negotiate this distance in 16 hours. Thus, from the statements of these two witnesses learned Counsel submitted that rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver of the U.P. Roadways is apparent. Therefore, he should also be held liable for the accident. As against this Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the U.P. Roadways and the driver has invited
Click Here to Read the rest of this document