Back
1996 JLJ 117
D.M. Dharmadhikari and Fakhruddin, JJ.
Usha Jain and others v. United India Insurance Co. and others
MA. No. 250 of 1991; against the award passed by Shri N.G. Karambelkar,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 25 of 1989;
Decided on 14.9.1995.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 95 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) -- in sub-clause (i) expression‘ ‘persons" has been deliberately used to cover victims of accident -sub-clause (i) covers third parties etc. -- subclause (ii) covers all remaining categories of passengers carried for hire or reward.
In sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) the expression "persons" has been deliberately used by the Legislature to cover in it victims of the accidents who may be ‘passengers not carried for hire or reward‘ or such third parties who are outside the vehicle on the road or any other place and victims of an accident. Harmoniously read together, sub-clause (i) covers third parties and passengers not carried for hire or reward ‘and, sub-clause (ii) covers all remaining categories of ‘passengers carried for hire or reward‘. To hold that in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) the expression "persons" would not include persons outside the vehicle on road and any other place would, in fact, frustrate the very purpose and aim of the Act to provide for compulsory insurance in favour of all third parties including passengers. 1991 ACJ 182 (Ker.) and 1991 ACJ 206 (AP) relied on. 1992 (2) AJR 361 (Guj.) dissented from. [Para 11]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 95 -- liability of insurer -- can be enhanced to unlimited by charging extrapremiwn -- extra premium .charged -liability of insurer becomes unlimited. 1994 (II) MPWN 41 relied on. [Para 14]
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110A -- claim case under -- insurer is expected to produce entire insurance policy -- limits of liability cannot be decided on technicalities. 1988 JLJ 639 (F.B.) relied on. [Para 14]
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110B -- victims aged 40 and 44 years -multiplier of 14 and 15 respectively is correct. 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 21]
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110B -- claim case -- compensation for loss of consortium and loss of estate -- should be awarded separately award of Rs. 15,000/- under each head is just and proper. 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 24]
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 93 ¼?k½ & ^^ijO;fDr** & chekdrkZ rFkk chekdrkZ ls fHkUu O;fDr rFkk ljdkj lfEefyr gSaA ¿iSjk 7 ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 95¼2½ ¼[k½ ¼i½ rFkk ¼ii½ & nq?kZVuk ds vkgrksa dks lfEefyr djus ds fy, mi[kaM ¼i½ esa vfHkO;fDr ^^O;fDr;ksa** dk ç;ksx tkucw>dj fd;k x;k gSa& mi[kaM ¼i½ dh O;kfIr esa ijO;fDr vkfn vkrs gSa & mi[kaM ¼ii½ dh O;kfIr esa HkkM+s vFkok ikfjJfed ds fy, ys tk, tkus okys ;kf=;ksa ds ckdh lc çoxZ vkrs gSaA mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds mi[kaM ¼i½ esa vfHkO;fDr ^^O;fDr;ksa** dk ç;ksx fo/kku eaMy }kjk tkucw> dj fd;k x;k gS rkfd mldh O;kfIr esa nq?kZVuk ds ,sls vkgr vk tk,¡ tks ^^HkkM+s vFkok ikfjJfed ds fy, ugha ys tk, tk jgs ;k=h** gksa vFkok ,sls ijO;fDr gksa tks ;ku ds ckgj lM+d vFkok fdlh vU; LFkku ij gksa rFkk nq?kZVuk esa vkgr gksaA ,d lkFk lqlaxr :i ls i<+s tkus ij mi[kaM ¼i½ dh O;kfIr esa ^^HkkM+s vFkok ikfjJfed ds fy, ys tk, tkus okys ;kf=;ksa** ds ckdh lc çoxZ vkrs gSaA ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ls fd [kaM ¼[k½ ds mi[kaM ¼i½ esa vfHkO;fDr ^^O;fDr;ksa** esa ;ku ls ckgj lM+d vFkok fdlh vU; LFkku ij gksus okys O;fDr lfEefyr ugha gksaxs] ;kf=;ksa lfgr lc ijO;fDr;ksa ds i{k esa vko";d chek ds çca/k dk vf/kfu;e dk ç;kstu rFkk mís"; gh okLro esa foQy gks tk,xkA 1991 , lh ts 182 ¼dsjy½ rFkk 1991 , lh ts 206 ¼vka-ç-½ voyafcrA 1992 ¼2½ , t vkj 361 ¼xqt-½ folEerA ¿iSjk 11 ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 95 & chekdrkZ dk nkf;Ro & vfrfjDr çhfe;e çHkkfjr dj c<+k dj vlhfer fd;k tk ldrk gS & vfrfjDr çhfe;e çHkkfjr & chekdrkZ dk nkf;Ro vlhfer gks tkrk gSaA 1994 ¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 41 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14 ¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110d & nkos dk ekeyk & chekdrkZ ls çR;kf"kr gS fd laiw.kZ chek ikfylh is"k dh tk, & nkf;Ro dh lhek rduhdh ckrksa ij fofuf"pr ugha dh tk ldrhA 1988 ts ,y ts 639 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14 ¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110 [k& vkgrksa dh o; 40 rFkk 44 o"kZ & Øe"k% 14 rFkk 15 dk xq.kd lgh gSA 1994 , lh ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21 ¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 110 [k & nkos dk ekeyk & lkgp;Z opu rFkk laink dh gkfu ds fy, çfrdj & i`Fkdr% vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkuk pkfg, & çR;sd ‘kh"kZ ds v/khu #- 15]000@& dk vf/kfu.kZ; U;k;laxr rFkk mfpr gSA 1994 , lh ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
D.M. Dharmadhik Bri, J. -- 1. On 14.12.1988, as a result of a head-on collision between mini-bus (MPW 6541) and scooter (CPW 1798), Devendra Kumar Gupta, the scooterist and Abhay Kumar Jain, pillion-rider sitting behind him, died. Their heirs filed two claim eases, No. 13 of 1989 and 25 of 1989, which were consolidated for trial as they arose out of the same accident. A common Award has been passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on 21st August, 1991. In these two appeals, M.A. No. 250 of 1991 and M.A. No. 168 of 1992, a common order is being passed as they arise out of same accident and a common Award.
2. In both the appeals, preferred by the claimant, only two prayers have been made. The first is that the Insurance Company should have been directed to be jointly and severally liable with the owner of the vehicle and the Driver and the liability of the Insurance Company should not have been held to be limited only to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- in case of each death. The second prayer is for the quantum of compensation. It is urged that the amount of compensation, determined by the Tribunal, is on the lower side and it should be enhanced.
3. The learned counsel Shri J.P. Gupta and Shri N.P. Mittal for the claimants; Shri B.N. Malhotra learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Shri N.K. Modi, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, addressed the Court at great length on the question of alleged limited liability of the Insurance Company and on interpretation of the provisions of section 95 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the' Act'). We have also heard Shri M.H. Haswani as amicus curiae in the case on the question of the interpretation of section 95 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
4. On behalf of the claimants, the substance of all the contentions advanced by different counsel appearing for them is that section 95 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) does not provide for any limited liability on the Insurance Company for death or injury to a third party, i.e., a person who is not inside the vehicle. Reliance for the above purpose and interpretation of the said provision is made on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Thakor Bhemaji Ganeshji & Ors., 1993 (2) AJR 361 (Guj. HC) and Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Martin Kanduna and ors, 1995 (1) T.A.C. 253 (Orissa).
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that there is a limit of Rs. 50,000/- prescribed for death and injury to third party including those who are inside the vehicle as passengers as they all are covered under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the legal question raised on behalf of the claimants is in fact, squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty (AIR 1987 SC 2158); National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore (AIR 1988 SC 719); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai (AIR 1995 SC 1113); Benny v. United India' Insurance Co. Ltd. (1991 ACT 182)-(Kerala) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alapati Venkata Subba Rao (1991 ACT 206) (A.P.).
6. We shall take up for consideration firstly the contention advanced with regard to the interpretation of section 95 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act. It is necessary to consider the provisions contained in section 95, sub-section (2) as a whole and the other provisions on the subject of Insurance, contained in Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 (2) may be reproduced for ready reference:
"95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) .....
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of anyone accident up to the following limits, namely -
(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's C
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
