Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 271 (RAJ)

Sita Devi v. Raghuveer Singh

2006-01-27

K.C.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Through this appeal under Section 173, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant seek to modify the award dated 011.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,500/-under different heads. 2. On 14.06.1988 at 9.45 P.M., when Daljeet Singh was on way at M.I. Road, Jaipur, a Mini Bus bearing No. RND 9285 hit him. It was alleged that the driver was driving the Bus rashly and negligently with excessive speed. As a result of this accident, Daljeet Singh sustained serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries. It was stated that at the time of accident the age of deceased was 38 years and was posted as driver in Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board. contributory 3. The learned Tribunal having concluded that accident occurred as a result of the Tribunal negligence of deceased and the driver of said Mini Bus, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. appears contributory negligence 3 27 000/-and since the accident took plac1 63 500/-thereby making the claimants entitled to get deducted 50% f the award amount i e as a result of compensation to 1 63 500Rs It further 4 dL Thfi Cthe tune of Rs that the Tribunal has made liable the Insurance Company to pay the compensation only to the extent of Rs 50 000/ that the road where accident took place was 60 wide and in between the ro d, there was ivider. The place where deceased was going on was 7 away from corner of th road nd still 23 wi road was available f r plying the Mini Bus. In t e position stated abov , the Mini Bus dash d the deceased from back side. In these circumstances the contributory negligence f the deceased cann t be held to be pr ved. The Tribunal in my considered view has committ d err r in deducting 50% f the compensation calculated by it. It must t erefore, be held that the claimants are entitled to receive the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,27,000/- 5. The second ground of challenge is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability of the respondent Insurance Company only to the extent of Rs. It must t erefore, be held that the claimants are entitled to receive the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,27,000/- 5. The second ground of challenge is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability of the respondent Insurance Company only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-by holding it to be the statutory liability fixed under the Act of 1939 learned Counsel submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited and the Insurance Company was liable to meet out all third party liability claim and that the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability to pay the entire award amount to the claimants. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi and Ors. 2005 ACJ 211 and (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hastimal Lodha and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/98 and five connected matters decided on 012.2005. 6. There is no dispute about the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the premium charged by the Insurance Company was in excess of Act only policy and was under heading B Liability to public risk, which was indicated at Rs. 240. The principle, which is well settled from the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, is that merely charging of higher premium or even taking a comprehensive policy does not necessarily cover the third party risk to the unlimited extent unless terms of the policy so provide for. 7. In National Insurance Company vs. Laxmi and Ors, the Division Bench of this Court having quoted the terms of liability as mentioned in the insurance policy observed: "A perusal of the aforesaid terms shows that under principal clause, the Insurance Company accepted its liability towards third party injuries co-extensive with legal liability of the owner of vehicle. By providing various clauses under provisos it limited its liability to act only liability in respect of matters covered by one or other of the provisos. Under none of the provisos limit of liability towards bodily injury or death caused to a party has been restricted to statutory liability though liability to indemnify passengers has been limited to statutory liability. By providing various clauses under provisos it limited its liability to act only liability in respect of matters covered by one or other of the provisos. Under none of the provisos limit of liability towards bodily injury or death caused to a party has been restricted to statutory liability though liability to indemnify passengers has been limited to statutory liability. So also liability towards employees has been also limited to the extent provided under Workmens Compensation Act." Ultimately, the Division Bench held as under: "No exception has been made to restricting liability undertaken by the Insurance Company to the extent the insured will become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to third party caused by or arising out of use. Therefore, in our opinion, under policy the appellant specifically undertook unlimited liability to indemnify the insured towards the third party by not excluding the liability of the insured in respect of claims arising out of death or bodily injury caused to the third party. Therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge were right in their conclusion. The liability of the Insurance Company on demand of additional premium was unlimited towards third party under the terms of the policy." 8. In the instant case, the terms of liability are exactly similar to that of the terms of liability in National Insurance Company vs. Laxmi Chand (Supra). In the case at hand also the terms of liability indicates that under principal clause, the Insurance Company accepted its liability towards third party injuries co-extensive with legal liability of the owner of the vehicle. It further reflects that by providing various clauses under provisos it limited its liability to Act only liability in respect of matters covered by one or other of the provisos. Under none of the provisos limit of liability towards bodily injury or death caused to a third party has been restricted to statutory liability though liability to indemnify passengers has been limited to statutory liability. In the circumstances, therefore, the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench. Accordingly, it must be held that the Insurance Company is liable for the entire claim. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances, therefore, the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench. Accordingly, it must be held that the Insurance Company is liable for the entire claim. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 3,27,000/-as has been calculated by the Tribunal and that the Insurance Company is liable to make payment of the entire amount of compensation. The respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining amount of award i.e., Rs. 1,63,500/-with the Tribunal within two months from the date of this order. The claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. On this amount from the date of application till realization. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse he same amongst the claimants.