Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 953
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOVARDHAN
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Madurai
Versus
Indira & Others
A.A.O. No. 55 of 1986 & Memo of Cross Objections in AAO. No. 558 of 1986
Decided On :Decided on : 17-09-1996
For the Appellant:K.S. Narasimhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.R. Rajaraman, P. Navaneetham & S. Venkateswaran, Advocates.
An insurance company's liability under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is limited to Rs. 50,000/- per accident, but this limitation can only be claimed if the insurance company raises the plea of limited liability and produces the policy of insurance before the Tribunal.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 95(2) - INSURANCE COMPANY'S LIABILITY - RESTRICTED TO RS. 50,000/- PER ACCIDENT - PLEA AND PRODUCTION OF POLICY NECESSARY - FAILURE TO RAISE PLEA OR PRODUCE POLICY - LIABILITY NOT LIMITED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's decision holding them liable for the entire compensation awarded to the claimants in a motor accident case. The insurance company argued that their liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but they had failed to raise this plea or produce the policy of insurance before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company's liability was not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as they had failed to raise the plea of limited liability or produce the policy of insurance before the Tribunal. The court noted that the insurance company had not challenged the Tribunal's finding on negligence or the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company's liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? 2. Whether the insurance company's failure to raise the plea of limited liability or produce the policy of insurance before the Tribunal barred them from claiming limited liability?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: 1. Under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of an insurance company in respect of any one accident is limited to any one injured in an accident. 2. In order to limit its liability, an insurance company must raise the plea of limited liability and produce the policy of insurance before the Tribunal. 3. Failure to raise the plea of limited liability or produce the policy of insurance before the Tribunal bars the insurance company from claiming limited liability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision holding them liable for the entire compensation awarded to the claimants.
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ramanathapuram at Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 47/1983.
2. The petitioners in their petition contend as follows: The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children to the deceased Thangavelu. Thangavelu aged 37 years was earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month in his business. On 28.2.1981, Thangavelu and four others were proceeding to Madurai in the car belonging to Kanthamani Chellayya. At that, time the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No. TNA 17 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came from the opposite side and dashed against the car in which Thangavelu was travelling. Thangavelu died in the accident. The petitioners who are the dependents, have lost the sole bread-winner and they are unable to do the business carried on by Thangavelu in Hardwares. The petitioners therefore make a claim for Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.
3. The first respondent, the owner or the bus, in his counter has contended that the bus was driven slowly and carefully by its driver. On 28.2.1981 at about 9.45 AM, when the bus was nearing Sinnambu Iruppu, the driver saw a double bullock cart coming in the opposite direction and there was a Jeep behind it. He has slowed down the bus and while he was crossing the cart, the car bearing registration No. TNY 5105 which came from behind the jeep in a rash and negligent manner attempted to overtake the jeep. On seeing the same, the bus driver stopped the bus. Yet, the ambassador car dashed against the stationary bus. On the complaint given by the bus driver a case was also registered against the driver of the car. The driver of the car Thangavelu is a close friend of the owner of the vehicle. Accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The first respondent is not liable for any compensation. The claim is also excessive.
4. The second respondent in their counter have contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by Thangavelu and the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased Thangavelu. Second respondent has also contended that they are not bound to pay any compensation and the compensation claimed is excessive.
5. This MCOP was enquired along with two other MCOP in MCOP. Nos. 42/1983 and 43/1983 which were filed by the dependants of one Palanivel and dependants of deceased one Shanmugham.
6. The Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. TNA 17 and awarded compensation to the claimants. As far as the claimants in MCOP. No. 47/1983 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- payable by the respondents 1 and 2 and apportioned the same among the claimants.
7. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondents has preferred this appeal C.M.A. No. 559/1986. The second respondent has also preferred two other appeals viz. , C.M.A. Nos. 557 and 558/1986. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 43/1983 who are the dependants of the deceased Shanmugham have preferred a Memorandum of Cross objections also. C.M.A. No. 557/1986 and 558/1986 have been dismissed since the appellants in the said appeals have challenged the liability of the appellant - viz. , insurance company. The appeal C.M.A. No. 553/1986 and Memorandum of cross objections to CA. 558/1986 therefore are considered now.
8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which held an enquiry in M.C.O.P. No. 47/1983, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- payable by the respondents 1 and 2 to the claimants, The appellant herein who is the second respondent before the tribunal does not challenge the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. This appeal is restricted only with regard to the liability of the second respondent in M.C.O.
