PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.Kantian, J.
New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Hem Raj
First Appeal from Order No. 793 of 1992,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 17, 2011
Liability - Insurance Company - Interpretation of Section 95(2)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerns the liability of an Insurance Company for the death of a person in a rickshaw involved in an accident with a passenger bus. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.96,000/- against the Insurance Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 95(2)(i) regarding the liability for a person other than a passenger was erroneous. The court held that the liability for a third party is restricted to Rs.50,000/- as per the Section.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 95(2)(i) - Liability of Insurance Company - Recovery of awarded amount
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 95(2)(i) and held that the liability of the Insurance Company for a third party is restricted to Rs.50,000/-, contrary to the Tribunal's award of Rs.96,000/-.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to Rs.50,000/- with interest. The right of recovery was determined to obtain from the insurer against the insured only and not against the claimant.
K.Kannan, J.
1. The appeal is on the issue of liability for the Insurance Company which contends that since the deceased was travelling in a rickshaw and was a third party to a passenger bus, in terms of Section 95(2)(i), the liability for a persono other than a passenger carried for hire or reward shall be Rs.50,000/- only. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.96,000/- and had directed the entire amount to be recovered against the Insurance Company.
2. I have no doubt in my mind mat the reading of the Section by the Tribunal was erroneous as regards the liability for a person other than a passenger. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend mat the sub-section must be read in such a way that the restriction of liability must be understood to apply onry for persons, who are driver or conductor and for a third party it is always unlimited liability. The learned counsel refers me to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and another v. Gurnam Kaur and others, (2007-2)146 P.L.R. 238 to contend that the limited liability for an Insurance Company qua third parry cannot be inferred by the provisions of Section 95(2)(l)(c);, I respectfully differ with the view expressed in the said judgment. The objects and reasons for enacting Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 198S itself spells out through clause 147 that it was enacted for meeting the requirementa of the policies and the limit of liability in respect of passengers and persons other than Pessengers In relation to passenger vehicles and goods carriages, which was meant to remedy only mischief of restriction of liability to even a claim of third party contained in the previous Act viz. MV Act, 1939. The award is, therefore, modified and the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted to Rs.50,000/- with interest. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the entire amount has been withdrawn from the Insurance Company as awarded by the Tribunal. In such an eventuality the right of recovery shall obtain from the insurer against the insured only and not against the claimant.
3. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.