Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 590 (MP)

RAM SINGH v. ASHOK SHARMA

2002-06-27

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, R.B.DIXIT

body2002
R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) FIRST Addl. Claims Tribunal, Bhind, by award dated 8. 2. 1996, passed in Claim Case No. 37 of 1991, awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 for the death of deceased Chhiddi in the accident occurred on 19. 7. 1991, at about 12 noon by truck No. MBG 9895, belonging to the respondent No. 1 Ashok, alleged to have been insured on the same date with national Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent no. 2. ( 2 ) IN this appeal for enhancement, the learned counsel of the appellants has submitted that the deceased was about 50 years of age, at the time of accident and was agriculturist, earning about Rs. 30,000 per year. Learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the exact income of the deceased was not properly proved and in the circumstances, it is not possible to assess dependency. The learned Claims tribunal, in the circumstances, fixed compensation of Rs. 25,000 on the basis of no fault liability and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, thus, awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation. Relying upon the Division bench decision of this court in the case of noharlal Sahu v. Surjeet Singh, 1998 (2)mpwn 128 , learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that where no income could be assessed, notional income may be deemed to be Rs. 15,000 per annum. However, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the claimant Beti Bai meanwhile, had expired and the legal heirs were not impleaded before the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, legal representatives who were added as parties during pendency of appeal are not entitled for any compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimant Beti Bai died after about seven years of the institution of claim. In the circumstances, she is entitled to enhanced compensation at least during her lifetime. In the circumstances, in our opinion, taking into consideration the notional income to the tune of Rs. 15,000 per annum, after deducting V3rd of the amount as expenses of the deceased, comes to Rs. 10,000 per annum, multiplied by seven remaining years of survival of the claimant and further adding Rs. 9,500 towards loss to estate and consortium and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs. 79,500. 15,000 per annum, after deducting V3rd of the amount as expenses of the deceased, comes to Rs. 10,000 per annum, multiplied by seven remaining years of survival of the claimant and further adding Rs. 9,500 towards loss to estate and consortium and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs. 79,500. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent company has vehemently argued that even though his cross-objections were not entertained being time-barred and his application/ for condonation of delay was also dismissed, the court can consider the legal effect of the date and timing of insurance policy under Order 41, rule 33 of civil Procedure Code. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, air 1988 SC 54 ; K. Muthuswami Gounder v. Palanippa Gounder, AIR 1998 SC 3118 and State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, air 1999 SC 2626 . ( 4 ) THE contention, on the other hand, of appellants is that where cross-appeal was not entertained, the court has no power to examine the effect of any pleading raised in the cross-appeal. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Rule 33 of Order 41 of civil Procedure Code enables appellate court to pass any order/decree which ought to have been passed. The general principle is that, a decree is binding upon the parties to it until it is set aside by appropriate proceeding. Ordinarily, the appellate court must not vary or reverse a decree or order in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal and this rule holds good notwithstanding Order 41, rule 33 of Civil procedure Code. However, in exceptional cases the rule enables the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed even if such decree would be in favour of the parties who have not filed any appeal. The power though discretionary should not be declined to be exercised merely on the ground that the party has not filed any appeal. Thus, in our opinion, even if cross-objections of the insurance company were not entertained on the technical ground, the court is not debarred from its right to exercise jurisdiction in examining any legal position for or against any of the parties. Thus, in our opinion, even if cross-objections of the insurance company were not entertained on the technical ground, the court is not debarred from its right to exercise jurisdiction in examining any legal position for or against any of the parties. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as present case is concerned, although in the written statement of insurance company, the time of commencement was mentioned as 12. 15 p. m. , however, when learned Claims Tribunal requisitioned the record of insurance company, it was found that the time of policy's commencement was 5 p. m. on 19. 7. 1991, i. e. , the date of incident. Even otherwise, if in the written statement, the time 12. 15 p. m. was mentioned on the basis of photocopy of the cover note. It is also the time, after the incident which occurred at 12 noon. It is to be noticed that the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Claims tribunal and take any objection against timing of insurance policy. ( 6 ) IN a Full Bench decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, 1999 ACJ 351 (SC), it was observed that where the accident had occurred during operation of insurance policy and specific time was mentioned in insurance policy, provisions of General Clauses Act stating that contract would be operative from midnight of that day, do not apply. Where the accident occurred earlier to time mentioned in policy, claimant cannot seek recovery of amount from insurance company. Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), it was made clear that the policy of insurance was issued on day of accident but some time after accident, in view of clear mention of time in the policy, occasion to ante-time it to previous midnight does not arise and insurer is not liable. The same view has been reiterated in Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai, 2000 ACJ 40 (SC ). ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the implications arising under the decisions of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the insurance company in this case is not liable to pay compensation. Ltd. v. Sita Bai, 2000 ACJ 40 (SC ). ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the implications arising under the decisions of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the insurance company in this case is not liable to pay compensation. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the legal representatives of the deceased/appellant are entitled to compensation of Rs. 79,500 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application from respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The insurance company is entitled to recovery of amount of Rs. 25,000, which it has already paid as no fault liability from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal partly allowed. .