SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(P&H) 35

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Dulat, D.K.Mahajan and P.C.Pandit JJ.
Northern India Transporters Insurance Co.Ltd.
Versus
Shrimati Amra Watti
First Appeal from the Order No. 145 of 1960,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 10, 1965

The liability of an insurer under a motor vehicle insurance policy, limited to the terms of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is capped at Rs. 20,000 for all passengers and Rs. 2,000 for each injured or deceased passenger.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95(2) - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURER - LIMIT OF LIABILITY - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE.

Fact of the Case:

Two passengers were killed in an accident involving a passenger bus insured against third party risks under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the widows and other heirs of the deceased passengers, directing the insurance company to pay the entire amount. The insurance company appealed, contending that its liability was limited to Rs. 20,000 for all passengers and Rs. 2,000 for each injured or deceased passenger, as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the liability of the insurer was indeed limited to Rs. 20,000 for all passengers and Rs. 2,000 for each injured or deceased passenger, as specified in Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court reasoned that the plain words of the statute supported this interpretation and that there was no justification for deviating from the clear language of the law.

Issues: 1. Whether the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 20,000 for all passengers and Rs. 2,000 for each injured or deceased passenger, as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. If so, how was the compensation recoverable from the insurer to be apportioned among the injured persons?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act strictly, giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. It rejected the arguments that the limit of liability should be interpreted as a minimum limit, allowing for additional coverage beyond the statutory requirement. 2. The court held that if compensation had to be apportioned among the injured persons, it should be done in proportion to the compensation awarded to each passenger by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The court answered the referred question by holding that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 20,000 for all passengers and Rs. 2,000 for each injured or deceased passenger, as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also directed that if compensation had to be apportioned among the injured persons, it should be done in proportion to the compensation awarded to each passenger by the Tribunal.

Judgment

Dulat, J.

1. A passenger bus belonging to the Sheikhupura Transport Company Ltd. met with an accident and two passengers were killed. Their widows and other heirs made claims for compensation before the Tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The bus was insured against third party risks necessary under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer being the Northern India Transporters Insurance Company. The Tribunal found that a sum of Rs. 8,000 was payable as compensation to one widow and Rs. 14,000 to the other, and directed under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the whole of this compensation be recovered from the insurance company. Against that decision two appeals were filed by the insurance company and two cross-appeals by the claimants, who prayed for higher compensation. The appeals were heard in the first instance by one of us, and the main point taken on behalf of the insurance company was that the insurance concerning passengers was limited to the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 95(2) and in terms of that section the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 20,000 in respect of all the passengers and it was further limited in the case of each injured or deceased passenger to Rs. 2,000. It was found that the question was sufficiently important to be considered by a larger Bench, and the appeals were, therefore, made over to a Division Bench, That Bench of which two of us were members, in turn, thought that this important question ought to be settled by a Full Bench, and the question of law has, therefore, come before us.

2. The controversy turns on the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , and the precise question referred to us for decision runs thus :

"If an insurance policy is taken out in respect of a passenger bus and is limited to the terms of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the bus meets with an accident resulting in injuries to several passengers, is the liability of the insurer not to exceed Rs. 20,000 in respect of all the passengers taken together, and is it limited to Rs. 2,000 in respect of each injured passenger, and if so, how is compensation recoverable from the insurer to be apportioned among the injured persons ?"

3. The second part of the question concerning apportionment presents no great difficulty and everybody before us is agreed that if there is to be an apportionment it should be in proportion to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each injured person. The first part of the question, however, is in serious controversy.

4. It is admitted that a passenger bus cannot be run without being insured against what is called " third party risk ". Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes that quite clear. Sub-section (1) of Section 95 then says that " in order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance " must comply with certain conditions and one of those is that the person or classes of persons specified in the policy must be insured to the extent specified in Sub-section (2). Then we go to Sub-section (2), which says:

"(2) subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely: (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle ;

(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees ; and in respect of passengers a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, and four thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the v





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top