IMPORTANT POINT
Accident—Pleat that liability to pay only to statutory extend in absence of proof of extra premium for coverage of other passengers last been paid—Insurance policy not produced—Plea negatived.

S. D. Anand, J.:- This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.213 and 214 of 1985 as common question of law and fact is involved therein. Crossobjections filed by Chand Kaur and Baljit Kaur (LRs of deceased Gurjant Singh – in the former FAO) shall also stand disposed of by this order.

2. Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani were travelling by bus No.PUU- 8955 (of which respondent No.1 is the registered owner) on 9.7.1983, the former having boarded the bus from Amritsar to travel upto Faridkot and the latter having boarded from village Mudki for going to village Kotkapura. The bus was being driven, at the relevant point of time, by respondent Jagrup Singh. When the bus reached near the brick-kiln, it turned turtle on account of the fact that it was being driven at a rash speed and in a negligent manner and respondent Jagrup Singh lost control over it. On that account, Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani died. MACT case No.27 of 1983 was preferred by Neelam, Madhu, Happy and Manju, all minor daughters of deceased Sita Rani; while MACT case No.28 of 1983 was filed by Baljit Kaur (wife of Gurjant Singh), Bohar Singh, Inderjeet Singh and Sukhmander Kaur @ Gudi (minor children of Baljit Kaur whom she begotten from the loins of her deceased-husband Gurjant Singh) and Mst.Chand Kaur (mother of deceased Gurjant Singh). The petitioners in both the petitions claimed compensation on an averment that the impugned accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Jagrup Singh.

3. The driver and the registered owner denied the allegation that the impugned accident had occurred in the manner averred by the petitioners aforementioned and pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the act of God because the main leaf of the bus got broken.

4. In MACT No.27 of 4.8.1983, compensation of Rs.25,800/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners. The appellant - Insurance Company and the registered owner/driver – respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

5. In MACT No.28 of 5.9.1983, though the learned Tribunal held that the petitioners in that case were entitled to a compensation of Rs.64,000/-, it further held that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to the causing of accident to the extent of 40%. In the light thereof, the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners was reduced to Rs.38,400/-.

6. The appellant (before this Court) - Insurer raised a plea of exoneration from liability on an averment that Gurjant Singh was an unauthorised passenger who was travelling on the roof which (travel on the roof) was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Qua the quantum of liability, it was averred that it is restricted upto the statutory limit inasmuch as no extra premium for coverage of other passengers was proved to have been paid.

7. I have heard Mr.LM Suri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and have carefully gone through the file. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to make a presentation before this Court on the date the judgment was reserved and even thereafter till date. None turned up either on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased Gurjant Singh and Sita Rani who had filed the cross-objections to contest the findings on point of contributory negligence.

8. Mr.Suri argued that the liability of the insurer would be restricted to the statutory extent in the absence of proof that extra premium for coverage of passengers had been paid by the insured.

9. The plea raised is completely bereft of merit. In this matter, the learned Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the insurer did not produce the policy of insurance inspite of the fact that an adjournment for the purpose aforementioned had been obtained and no reasons were forthcoming for the inability on the part of the insurer to prove that policy. The relevant fact-based observations, recorded by the learned T