Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 861 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Parsa

2001-08-16

ARUN B.SAHARYA, V.K.BALI

body2001
Judgment V. K. Bali, J. 1. Parsa alias Paras Ram, while driving truck No. HRG 4828 on 16.3.1981, hit Vijay Kumar, a school going child of six years, near Badshahpur town on the main highway. The accident resulted in amputation of left leg of the child above knee. Vijay Kumar claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000 by way of compensation in his petition filed before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. The tribunal, vide its award dated 4.11.1982, assessed compensation of Rs.87,840 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.50,000 with proportionate costs and interest. The remaining amount, naturally, was ordered to be paid by the owner and driver of the offending truck. This led to filing of F. A. O. No.62 of 1983 by the legal representatives of owner of the truck, in which cross-objections, too, came to be filed by the claimant. F. A. O. No.130 of 1983 was separately filed by the insurance company. While dealing with issue No.3 pertaining to liability of compensation or apportionment of the same between the insurance company and owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the learned single Judge held that entire compensation was payable by the insurance company. For holding so, the learned single Judge observed as follows: "adverting to the last point, whether the liability of the company is limited to rs.50,000 or unlimited, the argument raised on behalf of the owner of the truck is that in view of the Division bench judgment of this court in Ajitsingh V/s. Sham Lal, 1984 ACJ 255 (Pandh), it was the duty of the insurance company to have placed on record the policy of the truck to show that under the policy the liability of the company was limited because there could be unlimited liability also, and if the company wanted to take benefit, it should have produced the policy for the relevant period and since the company has failed to do so, in view of the aforesaid decision the entire liability deserves to be placed on the company. In this case, exh. R-l is the insurance policy for the previous year and only copy of Motor renewal Endorsement has been placed on record for the relevant year which is exh. R-2 and the policy which was issued, has not been placed on record. In this case, exh. R-l is the insurance policy for the previous year and only copy of Motor renewal Endorsement has been placed on record for the relevant year which is exh. R-2 and the policy which was issued, has not been placed on record. The cited case fully supports the argument that in the absence of the policy being produced in court by the company, the liability of the company would be considered to be unlimited. " 2. Aggrieved of the entire liability having been fastened upon the insurance company, it has filed the present Letters Patent appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent with limited challenge, as is clear from the facts detailed above, i. e. , only with regard to the extent of liability. 3. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel representing the appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , contends that a copy of motor Renewal Endorsement, Exh. R-2, was placed on record of the case. The same was exhibited by the lawyer representing the insurance company when he tendered the same in evidence. Its authenticity was not questioned at any stage, while exhibiting the document, i. e. , Motor Renewal endorsement was not even objected when the same was tendered into evidence. A reading of Exh. R-2 would clearly show that the renewal pertains to policy No.457256104 and its period was from 3.8.80 to 2.8.1981 and has been issued on 2.8.80. A true copy of the original policy bearing no.457256104 was also placed on record as Exh. R-l, which was from 3.8.1979 to 2.8.1980. The basic premium mentioned both in Exhs. R-l and R-2 is Rs.1,661. That apart, in para 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, it has specifically been averred that under policy, the total liability of the in surance company arising from single claim or a series of claims under Motor Vehicles act or Workmens Compensation Act resulting in one accident is up to Rs.50,000 and so much so Ram Saran, owner of truck no. HRG 4828, and Parsa alias Paras ram, driver of the aforesaid truck, themselves admitted in the written statement filed on their behalf that in case compensation is allowed, respondent No.3, the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. , is liable to pay the award up to Rs.50,000. Once, no objection at all was raised when the Motor renewal Endorsement, Exh. HRG 4828, and Parsa alias Paras ram, driver of the aforesaid truck, themselves admitted in the written statement filed on their behalf that in case compensation is allowed, respondent No.3, the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. , is liable to pay the award up to Rs.50,000. Once, no objection at all was raised when the Motor renewal Endorsement, Exh. R-2, was tendered into evidence and particularly when it has been the case of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle themselves that in case compensation is allowed, the insurance company has to pay award up to rs.50,000, the insurance company could not at all be saddled with entire liability. 4. We find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel representing the insurance company. We would have certainly gone into the facts of the case on the basis of which the appellant, insurance company, was directed to pay entire compensation as also some other judgments which have been cited during the course of arguments, in cases National insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jugal Kishore, 1988 acj 270 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Indira Rani, 1993 ACJ 1104 (Jandk), but, in view of the fact that owner and driver of the offending vehicle have admitted in clear terms in their written statement filed before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal that the liability of the insurance company was to the tune of Rs.50,000, we think that exercise of examining all these judgments would be in futility. Once, limited liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.50,000 was admitted in the pleadings by the contesting respondents, i. e. , owner and driver of the offending vehicle, there was no need at all to bring any evidence and that being so, whether Exh. R-2 is properly proved or that even if not properly proved, no objection was raised either with regard to its admissibility or authenticity, became wholly irrelevant. 5. In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and hold likewise as has been held by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal that liability of the appellant insurance company is limited to Rs.50,000, whereas rest of the compensation has to be paid by the respondents, i. e. , owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The judgment of the learned single Judge holding entire liability of the insurance company is set aside. The judgment of the learned single Judge holding entire liability of the insurance company is set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.