The liability of the insurance company for third-party claims under compulsory third-party insurance is unlimited, and the limit of Rs. 50,000 per person under Section 95(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, applies only to persons or passengers carried in the bus.

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE order in this appeal shall also decide the connected miscellaneous Appeal No, 683 of 1995 (Manager, Capital Roadways and Finance company v. Kamta Prasad) as both the appeals arise out of the same accident resulting in two deaths and in two separate claim petitions, decided separately by two awards dated 15. 12. 1995 passed by Mr. K. K. Gupta, Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Raisen and other dated 27. 4. 1995 passed by Mr. E. G. Yadav, ist additional District Judge, Raisen as Member, M. A. C. T. , Raisen. In claim petition giving rise to M. A. No. 492 of 1996 mehtab Singh died in the motor accident for whose death the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 but the same has been directed to be paid only by the owner and driver of the bus involved in the accident. In the same accident, mishrilal also died and for his death in claim petition giving rise to M. A, No. 683 of 1995 a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 has been awarded out of which the owner and driver of the bus involved in the accident have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 85,000 and the liability of the insurance company is held to be limited to the sum of Rs. 50,000.

( 2 ) THE only facts necessary for decision of the two appeals are that the bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration no. CIS 450 hit the motor cycle No. MKC 4710 of which the rider was Mishrilal and the pillion rider was Mehtab Singh. As a result of the collision in the accident, both the riders of the motor cycle, above named, died. The Claims Tribunal presided by two different Judges passed different awards directing payments in different manner as stated above.

( 3 ) MR. Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant owner in both the appeals, first raised a ground that the claims Tribunal in claim case for the death of Mehtab Singh grossly erred in completely absolving the insurance company from its liability. It is also urged that the Claims Tribunal in the claim case for the death of Mishrilal erred in restricting the liability of the insurance company only to Rs. 50,000. The learned counsel for the appellant from the record of the Claims tribunal in the two cases pointed out that the photocopy of the insurance policy of the vehicle was on record In the claim case for the death of Mishrilal, in the written statement the insurance company did not dispute the fact that the bus was insured with the respondent insurance company. In the claim case for the death of Mehtab singh, the photocopy of the insurance policy is on record. Yet, the Claims Tribunal in that case held that the insurance has not been duly proved by the claimants.

( 4 ) IN both the appeals, the common ground urged is that the bus involved being insured with the respondent insurance company, under the terms of the policy the liability of the insurer for death of third party was unlimited and the Claims Tribunal overlooked the terms of the policy to wrongly hold, in the case of death of mishrilal, that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to the extent of rs. 50,000.

( 5 ) THESE two claim cases furnish an occasion to this court to remind the Claims tribunals of their duties in deciding claim petitions filed by dependants of the victims of accidents. Naturally, the victims of accidents suffer serious handicap as most of them neither know the nature and. cause of accident nor they are aware whether the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident were insured or not. Whatever little information they can collect is furnished to the Claims Tribunal. Once the policy number is duly disclosed to the Claims tribunal, as is the case in both these claim cases, and/or the photocopy of the policy is supplied, it is the duty of the Claims tribunal to direct the insurance company to produce the original policy in the cases. See the following rule 226 of M. P. Motor vehicles Rules, 1994:"226. Obtaining of information and documents necessary for awarding compensation und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document