Back
1991 JLJ 280
Dr. T.N. Singh and K.K. Varma, JJ.
Bhagwandas and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another
Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1985; against the award passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, District Judge, Morena, in Claim Case No. 30 of 1982;
Decided on 30.6.1989.
Per K.K. Varma., J. (Dr. T.N. Singh, J. Contra) :
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss. 96(1), 96(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 95 and 94 --insurer cannot stand absolved by merely proving conditions of S. 96(2)(b)(i) and (ii) -- it has further to prove wilful infringement of those conditions by the insured.
"If the insurance company relies on the conditions specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 96, the insurance company cannot stand absolved merely on proof that the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of sub-section (2) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 96 have been taken care of by the facts and circumstances of the case. The insurance company has to prove that there was a breach of the conditions in question, that is, wilful infringement of violation committed by the insured. If the insurance company falls to establish all this and it is found that the insured is not at all at fault and has not done anything he should not have done, or was amiss in any respect, the insurance company cannot succeed on the strength of the exclusion clause in the insurance policy in respect of condition complained of. This view of the law is based on the hypothesis that the conditions referred to in section 96(2) (b)(i) and (ii) are not absolute ones 1987 JLJ 662 (SC) followed. 1983 MPWN 355, 1988(1) ACC 10, 1985 ACJ 762 and AIR 1977 SC 1735 and 1980 JLJ 650 distinguished. [Para 37
Per Dr. T.N. Singh :
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 92-A -- lowest limit compensation for loss of human life -- is Rs.15,000/- irrespective of his age and status in life. 1987 JLJ 721 relied on. [Paras 2 and 18
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss. 96(2)(b) -- exclusionary clauses pleaded by insurer -- owner of vehicle is under obligation to plead and prove that he himself is not guilty and the breach complained of is not ‘deliberate‘. 1987 JLJ 662 (SC) distinguished. [Para 5
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 96(2)(b)(i)(a) -- insurer taking specific plea invoking exclusionary clause under -- owner of vehicle not rebutting the same -- adverse inference against him may be drawn. [Para 4
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 1 -- provisions of the Act -- are applicable to proceeding before Motor Claims Tribunal. [Para 7
(7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss. 42, 60 and 96(2)(b)(i)(a) -- breach of condition of permit --- owner is liable -- in compensation case he should establish that breach was not his own and was not deliberate. 1987 JLJ 662 (SC) distinguished. 1989 JLJ 282, AIR 1982 Mad. 287, 1983 MPWN 355 and 1988(1) ACC 10 relied on. 1987 ACJ 762 and 1987 JLJ 712 distinguished. [Para 10
(8) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss. 92-A, 92-B, 93 (ba), 95 and 96 -- amount of award not more than amount of Interim award -- accident took place prior to insertion of S. 92-A -- liability to be indemnified by Insurer -- it cannot take shelter of exclusionary clause under S. 96. 1987 JLJ 721, 1988(1) ACC 144, 1988 JLJ 412 and 1985 JLJ 718 discussed. [Paras 15 & 16
(9) Interpretation of Statutes --- presumption against retrospective operation -- does not extend to matter of procedure. 1905 AC 369, AIR 1957 SC 540 relied on. 1989 MPLJ 156 (SC) discussed. [Para 17
(10) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- minimum amount of compensation --- may be determined taking aid of this provision irrespective of its retrospectivity. 1988 JLJ 412, AIR 1987 Bom. 58, (1988) 1 ACC 248, (1988) 1 ACC 144, 1985 ACJ 476, (1988) 1 ACC 441 and 1984 ACJ 716 discussed. [Para 19
¼1½ fof/kd lw= && Lo;a izek.k && nq?kZVuk dk ?kfVr gksuk lkfcr && lw= ykxw gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 18 ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ Jh ds-ds- oekZ ¼ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ MkW- Vh-,u- flag foi;kZ;½ % ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 96¼1½] 96¼2½¼[k½
^^;fn chek daiuh /kkjk 96 mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds mi[kaM
(i) vFkok mi[kaM (ii) esa fofufnZ"V ‘krksZa dk voyac ysrh gS] dsoy ;g lkfcr djds fd /kkjk 96 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds mi[kaM (i) rFkk (ii) esa of.kZr ‘krksZa ij] ekeys ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa }kjk fopkj dj fy;k x;k gS] og eqDr ugha gksxhA chek daiuh dks ;g lkfcr djuk gksxk fd iz‘uxr ‘krksZa dk Hkax gqvk Fkk] vFkkZr~] chfer }kjk tkucw> dj vfrya?ku vFkok vfrØe.k dkfjr fd;k x;kA ;fn chek daiuh ;g lc lkfcr djus esa vlQy gks tkrh gS rFkk ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd chfer dh dksbZ =qfV ugha Fkh rFkk mlus ,slk dqN ugha fd;k tks mls ugha djuk pkfg, Fkk] vFkok fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls nks"kh Fkk] chek daiuh ifjokfnr ‘krZ ds laca/k esa chek ikfylh esa viotZu [kaM ds vk/kkj ij lQy ugha gks ldrhA fof/k dk ;g er bls ifjdYiuk ij vk/kkfjr gS fd /kkjk 96¼2½¼[k½ (i) ,oa (ii) esa fufnZ"V ‘krsZa vkR;afrd ugha gSaA 1987 ts ,y ts 662 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 1983 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 355] 1988¼1½ , lh lh 10] 1985 , lh ts 762 ,oa , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1735 rFkk 1980 ts ,y ts 650 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 37 U;k;ewfrZ MkW- Vh-,u- flag %
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 92&d && eku thou dh gkfu ds izfrdj dh U;wure lhek && mldh vk;q ,oa thou esa gSfl;r ls fujis{k :-25]000@& gSA 1987 ts ,y ts 721 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 2 ,oa 18
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 96¼2½¼[k½ && chekdrkZ }kjk viotZu [kaMksa dk vfHkopu && ;ku dk Lokeh ;g vfHkopu djus rFkk lkfcr djus ds nkf;Rok/khu gS fd og ^Lo;a* nks"kh ugha gS rFkk ifjokfnr Hkax ^tkucw> dj* ugha fd;k x;k gSA 1987 ts ,y ts 662 ¼mPpre U;k-½ izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 5
¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 96¼2½¼[k½
(i) ¼d½ && chekdrkZ us bl mica/k ds v/khu viotZu [kaM dk voyac ysrs gq, fof‘k"Vr% vfHkopu fd;k && ;ku ds Lokeh us mldk [kaMu ugha fd;k && mlds fo:) izfrdwy fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 4 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 1 && vf/kfu;e ds mica/k && eksVj nkok vf/kdj.k ds le{k dk;Zokgh esa ykxw gksrs gSaA ¿ iSjk 7
¼7½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 42] 60 ,oa 96¼2½¼[k½
(i) ¼d½ && vuqKk&i= dh ‘krZ dk Hkax && Lokeh nk;h gS && izfrdj ds ekeys esa mls ;g LFkkfir djuk pkfg, fd Hkax mldk Lo;a dk ugha Fkk rFkk tkucw> dj ugha fd;k x;k FkkA 1987 ts ,y ts 662 ¼mPpre U;k-½ izHksfnrA 1987 ts ,y ts 282] , vkb vkj 1982 enzkl 287] 1983 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 355 ,oa 1988¼1½ , lh lh 10 voyafcrA 1987 , lh ts 762 ,oa 1987 ts ,y ts 712 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼8½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 92&d] 92&[k] 93¼[kd½] 95 ,oa 96 && vf/kfu.kZ; dh jkf‘k varfje vf/kfu.kZ; dh jkf‘k ls vf/kd ugha && nq?kZVuk /kkjk 92&d ds var%LFkkiu ds iwoZ gqbZ && nkf;Ro dh {kfriwfrZ chekdrkZ }kjk dh tk,xh && og /kkjk 96 ds v/khu viotZu [kaM dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrkA 1987 ts ,y ts 721] 1988¼1½ , lh lh 144] 1988 ts ,y ts 412 ,oa 1985 ts ,y ts 718 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 15 ,oa 16
¼9½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && Hkwry{kh izorZu ds fo:) mi/kkj.kk && izfØ;k ds fo"k; rd ugha tkrhA 1905 , lh 361] , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 540 voyafcrA 1989 ,e ih ,y ts 156 ¼mPpre U;k-½ foosfprA ¿ iSjk 17
¼10½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 92&d && izfrdj dh U;wure jkf‘k && bl mica/k dh lgk;rk ys dj bldh Hkwryf{krk ij fopkj fd, fcuk vo/kkfjr dh tk ldrh gSA 1988 ts ,y ts 412] , vkb vkj 1987 cacbZ 58] ¼1988½ 1 , lh lh 248] ¼1988½ 1 , lh lh 144] 1985 , lh ts 476] ¼1988½ 1 , lh lh 441 ,oa 1984 , lh ts 716 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 19
K.K. Varma, J. -- 1. This order shall dispose of this appeal, Misc. First Appeal No. 97/1985 (Bhagwan Das and another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another) and Misc. First Appeal No. 98/1985 (Bhagwandas and another v. National Insurance Co. and another).
2. Appellants in these three appeals are owners of the Truck No. CPC-1996 which was involved in an accident on the Agra-Bombay Road, near the bridge of the Asan river, adjacent to the village of Chhoda, about 8 Kms. from the town of Morena, in the after-noon of 28th February, 1982. Shrimati Phoola, wife of Ramchandra and their minor son Pappu (aged 2 years), Shrimati Rajuka, wife of Ram Prasad and Ram Prasad himself were travelling in the truck as passengers. The truck over-turned. Of the aforementioned passengers, Phoola, wife of Ramchandra and their son Pappu and Ram Prasad's wife Rajuka died from the injuries received in the accident. Ram Prasad also received injury.
3. Ramchandra filed two claims petitions before the member of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Morena, on 26th August, 1982. In claim case No. 30/82 Ramchandra claimed 1,07,000 rupees as compensation for the death of his wife Shrimati Phoola (aged 28 years). In claim case No. 31/82 Ramchandra claimed 1,02,000/- rupees as compensation for the death of his son Pappu (aged 2 years).
4. Ram Prasad filed a claim case No. 32/82 on 27.8.1982. In it he claimed 1,50,000/- rupees as compensation for the death of his wife Shrimati Rajuka and a sum of 2,03,000/- rupees as compensation for his injury.
5. The cases were contested by the truck owners and the National Insurance Company which had issued a comprehensive insurance in their favour in respect of the truck in question and the insurance policy was in force at the date of the accident. It covers 3 party risks.
6. The Tribunal disposed of all the three claim petitions by its award dated 8th July, 1985.
7. Claimant Ramchandra (respondent No.2) in Misc. First Appeal No. 90/85 and Misc. First Appeal No. 97/85 got an award of 15,000/- rupees (in Claim Case No. 30/82), and another award of 4,000/- rupees (in Claim Case No. 31/82) as compensation, respectively for the death of his wife Shrimati Phula and their minor son Pappu.
8. The truck owner Saheb Singh and the truck driver Bhagwandas (the appellants in these three appeals), were made liable, Jointly and severally, but the Insurance Company was held not liable under the insurance policy. This was the situation in the three claim petitions in question.
9. In Misc. First Appeals No. 90/85 and 97/85 claimant Ramchandra has filed cross-objections claiming in effect an award of 50,000/- rupees against the driver, the owner and also against the National Insurance Company Limited.
10. in Misc. First Appeal No. 98/85 claimant-respondent No.2 Ram Prasad died during the pendency of the appeal. His four sons and three daughters were impleaded as his legal representatives. The legal representatives of Ram Prasad have filed a cross-objection claiming 3,60,000/- rupees against the owner and the truck driver and also against the National Insurance Company Limited.
11. During the appeals, the claimants were permitted to amend their respective claim petitions and cross-objections claiming 'no fault' compensations under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
12. It is now not disputed by the appellants that the truck in question, with appellant No. 1 Bhagwandas as a duly licensed driver thereof over-turned, resulting in the accident in question in which Smt. Phula, Pappu, Shrimati Rajuka died and Ram Prasad received injuries and others who lost their lives or received injuries -- all had been travelling in the truck as passengers from whom the truck driver had taken money to take them on the truck to carry them to their respective destinations.
13. The first point, then, for determination is whether the accident was the result of rash or negligent driving by appellant No. 1 Bhagwandas.
14. Claimant Ram Prasad (AW-2)
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
