Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
National Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Rani Rai Bajaj
First Appeal No. 41 of 1966,
Decided On : APRIL 26, 1972
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - EXTENT OF LIABILITY - LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR BODILY INJURY TO PASSENGERS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 95 AND 96 - RIGHT OF APPEAL BY INSURER - GROUNDS OF APPEAL - COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER FOR COMPENSATION AWARDED TO PASSENGERS - LIABILITY OF INSURER FOR COMPENSATION AWARDED TO OWNER OF VEHICLE - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Five appeals arose out of one judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) in five claim petitions arising out of the same accident. The accident occurred when a car carrying four passengers collided with a truck. Two passengers died and the driver and two other passengers were injured. Claims were filed by the heirs of the deceased passengers, the injured passengers, and the owner of the car. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and held that the accident was due to the negligence of both the drivers. The insurer of the truck and the insurer of the car filed appeals against the award.
Finding of the Court:
1. The insurer of the truck has a right to appeal against the award of the Tribunal on the ground that it is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). The insurer is not liable to pay the amount in respect of death or bodily injury to the passenger of the car under Section 96 (1) read with clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95, and the Tribunal has wrongly given an award against it in this case. 2. The insurer of the car is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act. The passengers in a car are not "any person" as has been stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95. 3. The insurer of the car is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the owner of the car on account of death of and injuries to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act. The passengers in a car are not any person as has been stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95. 4. The accident was due to the composite negligence of both the drivers and not due to the contributory negligence of the passengers.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurer of the truck has a right to appeal against the award of the Tribunal on the ground that it is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act? 2. Whether the insurer of the car is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act? 3. Whether the insurer of the car is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the owner of the car on account of death of and injuries to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act? 4. Whether the accident was due to the composite negligence of both the drivers and not due to the contributory negligence of the passengers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurer of the truck has a right to appeal against the award of the Tribunal on the ground that it is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act. The insurer is not liable to pay the amount in respect of death or bodily injury to the passenger of the car under Section 96 (1) read with clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95, and the Tribunal has wrongly given an award against it in this case. 2. The insurer of the car is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act. The passengers in a car are not "any person" as has been stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95. 3. The insurer of the car is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the owner of the car on account of death of and injuries to the passengers of the car under Section 96 read with Section 95 of the Act. The passengers in a car are not any person as has been stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95. 4. The accident was due to the composite negligence of both the drivers and not due to the contributory negligence of the passengers.
Final Decision: 1. The appeal of the insurer of the truck (F.A.O.No.41 of 1966) is accepted and it is held that the said Insurance Company will not be liable to pay any amount on account of claim of Shrimati Rani Bai Bajaj and others because of death of Gopal Dass Bajaj. 2. The appeal of the insurer of the car (F.A.O.No.44 of 1966) is also accepted and it is held that the said Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount as ordered by the Tribunal to Shrimati Bhagwanti and others. The South Company will be liable to pay Rupees 12,000.00 out of the total amount of Rs.31,500.00 to them as ordered by the Tribunal. Out of the remaining amount of Rs.19,500.00, the owner of the truck will be liable to pay Rs.3,750.00. The balance amount of Rs. 15,750.00 will be paid by the owner of the car. 3. The appeal of Mathura Dass (F.A.O.No.173 of 1967) stands dismissed. The appeal of National Company (F.A.O.No. 42 of 1966) is accepted and it is held that the said Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to Mathura Dass. The South Company will be liable to pay Rupees 2,000.00 to Mathura Dass as ordered by the Tribunal. The balance amount of Rupees 2,000.00 will be recoverable by Mathura Dass from the owner of the car. 4. The appeal of Shrimati Rani Bai Bajaj etc. (F.A.O.No.96 of 1966) is also accepted and the amount of claim is enhanced from Rs.16,500.00 to Rs.20,000.00. Out of the said amount, the South Company would be liable to pay Rs.6,000.00 as ordered by the Tribunal. R. 3,800.00 will be payable by the owner of the truck instead of Rupees 2050.00 which amount was ordered by the Tribunal to be payable by him--the owner of the truck to National Company. The balance amount of Rs.10,200.00 will be paid by the owner of the car.
1. These five appeals will be disposed of by this judgment which have been numbered as F.A.O. Nos. 41, 42, 44, 96 of 1966 and 173 of 1967. All the appeals arise out of one judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) which was passed in five claim petitions, details of which are given here under. I have also given the number of appeals against each claim in which it has been filed:-
- Sr. No. ___________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Claim application No. ___________________ 15/CT of 1964 19/CT of 1964 20/CT of 1964 21/CT of 1964 22/CT of 1964 Name of the Parties __________________ Rani Bai Bajaj and others. V/s. Darshan Singh and others. Dewan Manmohan Lal V/s. Darshan Singh and others Pritam Singh V/s. Darshan Singh and others. Mathura Dass V/s. Darshan Singh and others. Shrimathi Bhagwanti and others V/s. Darshan Singh and others Appeal, if field with number and the name of the appellant ___________________
(i) Appeal filed by Rani Bai Bajaj for enhancement of compensation F.A.O.No.96 of 1966.
(ii) Appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., F.A.O.No.41 of 1966. No appeal filed. No appeal filed.
(i) Appeal filed by Mathura Dass for enhancement of compensation F.A.O. No. 173 of 1967.
(ii) Cross appeal by National Insurance Company Ltd., F.A.O. No. 42 of 1966. Appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. F.A.O. NO. 44 of 1966.
2. The claim applications were made by different persons arising out of the same accident. The facts briefly are that Car No. P.N.E. 7748 belonging to Krishna Roller and Flour Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Mill) was proceeding on November 21, 1963, from Ludhiana to Delhi. It carried four passengers, namely, Shri Mathura Dass, Dewan Manmohan Lal, Gopal Dass Bajaj, Kishori Lal, besides the driver Pritam Singh. At about 9-15 A.M. the car reached near village Bija. The driver of the car saw some carts loaded with bricks which were coming from the opposite side followed by Truck No.P.N.P. No.6012. The truck while overtaking the carts, collide against the car and on account of the accident, two passengers of the car, namely, Gopal Dass Bajaj and Kishori Lal died and Manmohan Lal, Mathura Dass and Pritam Singh driver received grievous injuries. The car and the truck were also damaged badly. Five applications for claims were filed, the details of which have already been given above. The application given at Serial No.1 above was filed by Rani Bai Bajaj and others for recovery of Rs.75,000/- as heirs of Gopal Dass Bajaj, application at Serial No.2 was filed by Dewan Manmohan Lal for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 application at Serial No.3 was filed by Pritam Singh driver, the recovery of Rs.25,000/- and application at serial No. 4 was filed by Mathura Dass, injured person, for recovery of Rs.50,000/- respectively. Shrimathi Bhagwanti and others mentioned at Serial No.5 filed a claim application for Rs.50,000/- on account of loss suffered by the death of Kishori Lal. In the claim applications, the claimants have alleged the negligence of the driver of the truck, Darshan Singh. The car was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the National Company) and the truck was insured with South India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the South Company). The truck was owned by M/s. Moti Ram Darshan Singh and Darshan Singh himself was driving the truck at the time of accident.
3. The claims have been contested by the insurer of the truck, the driver and the owner of the truck and the owner and the insurer of the mill. All of them denied their liabilities for payment of compensation on their part. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
-
"1. Whether the accident was due to the negligence of Darshan Singh owner and driver of the truck or that of Pritam Singh driver of the car or that of both?
2. What is the quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom?
3. Relief."
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
