Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 484 (KAR)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. G. R. RADHAMANI

2000-07-13

H.N.TILHARI, T.N.VALLINAYAGAM

body2000
TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 1. 2. 1992 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal x (Mr. M. s. Rajendra prasad), Bangalore city, in m. v. c. No. 1561 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE tribunal had awarded compensation as mentioned in the award to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000 to the claimant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimant No. 2 in the claim petition. The tribunal has further observed and held that the new India assurance co. Ltd. , who was respondent No. 2 before the tribunal below and is the appellant herein, is and has been jointly liable for the payment of the compensation to the claimants. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved of the said order of the motor accidents claims tribunal, the respondent No. 2, i. e. , insurer has come up in appeal before this court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellant. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the insurance company, an application (la. 2) was filed under order 41, Rule 27 of the code of civil procedure for filing of the document. We have rejected the said application taking the view that the necessary ingredients of order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made out. ( 6 ) THE'learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal below has illegally fastened the liability on the insurance company and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company. The learned counsel contended that the deceased was admittedly employee of the assured who was travelling in the vehicle in question and as such the risk was not covered in the policy. The accident in question in the present case had taken place on 10. 2. 90, i. e. , after the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to proviso to Section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident in question in the present case had taken place on 10. 2. 90, i. e. , after the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to proviso to Section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This proviso is not of much help to the appellant as the proviso is to the effect that the insurance policy issued with limited liability and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after the date of commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. In the present case, the insurance policy in question was issued on 1. 4. 1989 to be in force till 31. 3. 1990. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came into operation on 1. 7. 1989 and the policy was issued before the commencement of this act and was in force on the date of commencement of the act. It could be operative only for a period of four months from 3. 7. 1989, i. e. , limited liability clause could be operative only till 1. 11. 1989. The accident in question in the present case as mentioned earlier had taken place on 10. 2. 1990. So, the limited liability clause did not operate on the date of the accident. ( 7 ) SECTION 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been interpreted by this court as well as by their lordships of the Supreme Court. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rasheeda, 1998 ACJ 1404 (karnataka), this court after perusal of the various Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has interpreted the expression 'any person' used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it has opined that the expression 'third party' or 'any person' used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 included any person, even a person travelling in a private car. The view of this court has further been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. The view of this court has further been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (sc), wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para 10 of the said report as follows:"the result is that under the new act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new act came into force. " ( 8 ) WITH regard to the amount of compensation awarded in respect of death or bodily injuries of the victim and extent of liability of insurer, it is apparent that the limit has been removed and the policy should insure the liability incurred and covered as to the injuries to any person including the owner of the goods in the vehicle or authorised representative of the owner of goods carried in the vehicle. The legislature has also taken care even the policy which was in force as on the date of the commencement and has specifically provided with reference to the policy issued, containing any limits regarding the insurance liability of the insurer, that such a clause shall remain operative for a period of four months from the date of the commencement of the act or till the date of expiry of the policy whichever is earlier. This means that after the said period of four months from the date of the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, said limit of liability clause ceased to remain in force, instead it stood converted into unlimited liability tor the amount of compensation awarded for death of or injury to a person/victim of accident as under sub-section (2) of Section 147 there is no upper limitation for the insurer's liability, as per principle laid down in that regard in para 9 of above-mentioned case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (sc ). Ltd. V. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (sc ). ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the policy did not cover the liability with reference to that of employee has got no substance and as such is rejected. The appeal being devoid of merits, as such, is hereby dismissed. ( 10 ) THE appeal having been dismissed, it is open to respondent No. 3 to realise the amount from the insurance company which he may be entitled to realise in view of this Order, under the award. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .