Insurer's liability for death of employees in a goods vehicle is limited to statutory cap under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with responsibility for excess liability on the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J.

The appellant insurance company has filed this appeal against award dated 2.2.1989 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana whereby insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to injured/LRs of the deceased.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased-Gurdev Singh was working as a Junior Engineer in Public Health Department at Moga and deceased-Manohar Lal was working as a Cleaner on truck No.PUU 9086 belonging to Public Health Department, Moga; that on 17.6.1987, both of them were coming back to Moga via Nellon-Ropar road along Sirhind canal in the aforesaid truck which was driven by Surinder Kumar-respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. When the truck reached near the road crossing in between village Poonia and Bhande, respondent No.2 lost control and the truck fell into the canal. Resultantly, Gurdev Singh and Manohar Lal were drowned in the canal while other persons travelling in the said truck were saved by Surjit Singh son of Chhaju Singh with the help of boat. The matter was reported to the police by aforesaid Surjit Singh and then FIR was registered against respondent No.2- Surinder Kumar. The truck was insured with appellant insurance company.

3. LRs of Gurdev Singh filed MACT No.229 /2 of 1987 against respondent No.1-Punjab State, respondent No.2-Surinder Kumar and the appellant insurance company for grant of compensation on account of death of Gurdev Singh in the aforesaid accident.

4. In the same manner legal heirs of Manohar Lal filed MACT- 354/3 of 1987 for grant of compensation on account of death of Manohar Lal in aforesaid accident.

5. Both the claim petitions were contested by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle and separate written statements were filed. The factum of the accident was not denied but it was pleaded that the accident took place due to some mechanical defect in the vehicle and not due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question. The insurance company also took plea that it is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case.

6. Replications were filed controverting the averments made by the respondents in their written statements.

7. On the pleading of the parties following issues were framed:-

i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the truck driver bearing registration No.PUU-9086? OPA

ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPA

iii. Relief.

8. Then the parties led their respective evidence and the Tribunal decided issue No.(i) and (ii) in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation worth 52,320/- to Hans Raj and other claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, on account of death of Manohar Lal in MACT-354/3-1987. Likewise award of Rs. 2,26,560/- was passed in favour of Balbir Kaur and Ors. along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization in MACT-229/2 of 1987. In both the claim petitions, appellant-insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. The share of minors was directed to be deposited in some Nationalized Bank in shape of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.

9. Being not satisfied, this appeal has been filed by the insurance company.

10. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

11. The counsel for the insurance company has inter alia submitted that the accident in question took place in 1987 and at the time of accident, truck in question was insured with the appellant-insurance compan