Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4511 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. Gurnam Kaur

2006-12-13

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Driver of the vehicle against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda vide which the claimants respondents were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realisation. 2. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that Dalip Singh deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.2.1989 due to the rash and negligent driving of car No. CHF-752 by Rajesh Kumar respondent No. 1. 3. On issue No. 2 the claimants were held to be the legal representatives of deceased Dalip Singh and as already mentioned the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till its realisation from respondents No. 1 & 4. 4. On issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that liability of Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only and accordingly the balance liability was fixed on the appellant herein. 5. On issue No. 5, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver was holding a valid driving licence. 6. Mr. Rakesh Verma, counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding on issue No. 4 only. The learned Tribunal on issue No. 4 had come to the conclusion that insurance policy was qua 3rd party and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the old Motor Vehicles Act and in order to reach this conclusion the learned Tribunal placed reliance on Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under :- "95 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the old Motor Vehicles Act and in order to reach this conclusion the learned Tribunal placed reliance on Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under :- "95 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - xx xx (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely - [(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of [fifty] thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;] [(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, - (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers, - (1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers; (2) a limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers; (3) a limit of one lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers; and (4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and fire thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case; (c) save a provided in clause (d), where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred; xx xx" The bare reading of this section shows that the case of the petitioner was under Section 95(2)(1)(c) and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was to the amount of liability incurred. It is not in dispute in the present case liability incurred was Rs. 1,44,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realisation. Accordingly, the insurance was liable to pay the whole amount. It is not in dispute in the present case liability incurred was Rs. 1,44,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realisation. Accordingly, the insurance was liable to pay the whole amount. The finding of the Tribunal is outcome of misreading of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which cannot be sustained and is accordingly reversed and it is held that the liability of the insurance company was to pay the whole amount awarded and not to the Rs. 50,000/-. The leaned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice that the amount already stands paid by the appellant No. 1 to the claimants as there was no stay granted while admitting the appeal. In view of this, it is ordered that the insurance company shall refund the amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,288/- deposited by the appellant No. 1 along with interest @ 6% per annum. Appeal allowed.