Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2181 (MAD)

New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu

2008-07-01

S.MANIKUMAR

body2008
JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. In all these civil miscellaneous appeals, the appellant/insurance company has taken up the plea that, as per the terms of the policy, the Company is statutorily bound to pay compensation only to the number of persons for whom there is a risk coverage and that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation in respect of all the claimants. As the question of law and facts involved in these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Facts leading to the appeals are as follows: On 21.10.1997, 17 persons travelled in a lorry bearing registration No. TCQ 8479, owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant's company. Due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle capsized. As a result, 15 persons sustained injuries, out of which, 13 died. Legal representatives of the deceased and the injured, filed separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Court, Karur. As the averments of the claimants, evidence to be let in and the defence were common, all the claim petitions were heard and disposed of by a common award. Even before the Tribunal, the dispute was only with regard to the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation. Though the appellant/insurance company examined its Administrative Officer and contended that as per Ex.R.1 Policy issued in favour of the owner of the lorry, the Company was statutorily liable to compensate only for six coolies, as the vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the Company to pay compensation for all the claimants. Ex.R.1, policy issued by the Company covers the risk of the following persons, namely, two drivers, one cleaner, six coolies and one non-fare paying passenger. Aggrieved by the awards, the insurance company has filed appeals in respect of each claim. 3. Mr. A.K. Bhaskara Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had failed to consider that Ex.R.1 policy, covers only the liability in respect of passengers by lift or without payment of hire or reward and other risk in order to make the appellant/insurance company liable to pay higher award. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the decisions reported in Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the decisions reported in Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. Shekamma and others, AIR 1994 AP 338 , Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat Vs. Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and another, AIR 1997 Bom 242 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Govindan 2001 (1) CTC 306 relied on by the respondents are not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as Ex.R.1, policy, is a specific agreement between the insured and the insurer limiting the liability of indemnification to a fixed number of persons. Though it was the contention of all claimants that the deceased/injured, travelled only as coolies, the Tribunal ought to have restricted the liability of the appellant Company only to six persons, covered under the policy and the company cannot be made liable to pay compensation in respect of all the persons who had travelled as load men/load women, in the goods vehicle, which can accommodate only six persons. He further submitted that as the policy covers only six persons carried in the lorry, the liability of the insurance company u/s 147(2)(b)(i) and Sub-clause 2(d)(i) can be limited only to the number of persons specifically mentioned in the insurance policy. Therefore, he submitted that the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation in respect of all the claimants is illegal. 5. Placing reliance on the decision reported in 2007(2)TN MAC 193(SC), National Insurance Company Limited and Anjana Shyam & Others, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Tribunal had directed the company to pay compensation for all the claimants, keeping in mind the limited liability of the insurance company to cover the risks under Ex.R.1 policy, the highest of the awards granted to six claimants can be taken in the descending order and the amounts be distributed to all the claimants proportionately and suitable directions may be issued to recover the balance amount from the insured, namely, the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent in these appeals. 6. Per contra, relying on the decisions in Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. Shekamma and others, AIR 1994 AP 338 , Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat Vs. Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and another, AIR 1997 Bom 242 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Dharmapuri v. A. Govindan and Anr. 6. Per contra, relying on the decisions in Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. Shekamma and others, AIR 1994 AP 338 , Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat Vs. Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and another, AIR 1997 Bom 242 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Dharmapuri v. A. Govindan and Anr. reported in 2001 (1) CTC 306, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that carrying more number of persons than the persons mentioned in the policy may be a breach of condition by the insured, and it is not by which, the contract of insurance will be vitiated, as the main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the risk to the loadmen carried in the vehicle. Therefore, she submitted that the insurer is statutorily liable to make good the loss and recover the said amount from the insured in the same proceedings by way of execution. She further submitted that when the statute recognises no other conditions for an insurer to escape their liability except those which are available in Section 149(2), the insurer is bound to compensate victims. 7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is the specific case of the claimants, that the deceased numbering 13 and the injured were all employed as load men/load women in the lorry bearing registration No. TCQ 8479, which capsized on the fateful day. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carriage vehicle. Ex.R1 policy had the coverage for two drivers, one cleaner, six coolies and one non-fare passenger. 9. Before adverting to the facts of this case it is worthwhile to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjana Shyam's case. 10. The facts of the case as extracted in the judgment are as follows: 3. On the day of the accident, the materials indicate that the bus was overloaded. There were at least 90 passengers. The bus fell off the road into a nullah leading to the death of 26 including the one who was driving the vehicle and injuring 63 persons. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured, all approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation and seeking its adjudication on applications made u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim was resisted by the owner, the insured and by the Insurance Company. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured, all approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation and seeking its adjudication on applications made u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim was resisted by the owner, the insured and by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company mainly contended that the bus was overloaded; that it was being driven not by an authorised driver at the time of the accident; and that the Insurance Company had no liability. Alternatively, it was sought to be pleaded that the owner having permitted the vehicle to be overloaded had committed a fundamental breach of the contract of insurance and therefore the Insurance Company could repudiate the policy and hence was not liable for the compensation that may be adjudged. The Tribunal had brushed aside these objections and passed various awards on the various claims and made the Insurance Company liable for paying the amounts covered by all the awards exceeding the 42 covered by the insurance. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed 38 appeals challenging the awards. In the appeals, an application was made seeking impleadment of the State of Himachal Pradesh. This was on the basis that the authorities under the State had failed to check the overloading of the bus and it was due to the negligence of the authorities of the State in not checking overloading and adherence to the conditions of the permit by the owner of the vehicle and the relevant provisions of the Act that the accident had occurred and hence the State must be found to be liable for contributory negligence and for that purpose it was just and necessary to implead the State as a party to the proceedings. An amendment of the written statement of the Company was also sought for to introduce the plea that the bus carried 90 passengers at the time of the accident as against the sitting capacity of 42 including the driver and the conductor and in that situation the liability should be apportioned between the Insurance Company, the owner and the State and the Insurance Company could be found liable only to the extent of the insurance it had provided and it was bound to provide in terms of Section 147 of the Act and in terms of the conditions of the permit held by the owner of the bus. The Insurance Company also sought permission to raise other contentions which were not normally open to it, by invoking Section 170 of the Act. The High Court taking the view that overloading of the bus which had a permit to ply on the route with only 42 passengers, did not amount to violation of the route permit or any other law for which the State Government could be held to be contributorily negligent and that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amounts as awarded by the Tribunal since it could not also question the quantum of compensation awarded. Thus, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. It also dismissed the three appeals filed by three different claimants seeking enhancement of compensation in their respective cases. The Insurance Company has filed Civil Appeals Nos. 2422-59 of 2001 challenging the decision of the High Court. 4. In the accident giving rise to CAs Nos. 5992-6026 of 2002, the vehicle had only the capacity to carry 42 passengers but at the time of the accident, there were 70 passengers in the bus. The stand of the Insurance Company is that only 42 passengers were insured and they cannot be compelled to meet the award beyond the contract of insurance itself. The appeals actually challenge only the interim awards made in respect of the claims, even beyond the insured 42. 5. In the accident giving rise to CA No. 4288 of 2006 the vehicle was insured for 38 passengers and two more including the driver and the conductor. There were more than 70 passengers at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company contends that its liability is limited to the claim of 38 passengers. 6.In the civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 14167 of 2001, the claim was one arising out of the accident that has given rise to Civil Appeals Nos. 2422-59 of 2001. The appeal before the High Court was disposed of in the light of the earlier judgment from out of which CAs Nos. 2422-59 have arisen. 11. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company before the Supreme Court was that the insurance company having insured 42 passengers in two of the cases and 38 passengers in another, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be enlarged and the same can be confined only to 42 insured passengers. 2422-59 have arisen. 11. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company before the Supreme Court was that the insurance company having insured 42 passengers in two of the cases and 38 passengers in another, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be enlarged and the same can be confined only to 42 insured passengers. It was submitted that there is nothing in the Act which justifies imposition of liability on the Insurance Company, in respect of persons, who were not at all covered by the insurance policy and in respect of whom there was no obligation on the owner of the vehicle to take coverage of insurance in terms of Section 147 of the Act. 12. Before the Supreme Court, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that however much, the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are for the benefit of third parties or passengers of a transport vehicle injured in an accident, the same did not contain any provision which could enlarge the liability of the Insurance Company compelling it to cover more persons than it had contracted to cover. 13. Refuting the contentions, learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents before the Supreme Court submitted that the victims of accidents are not to be driven to chase the mirage of recovery of compensation or damages from the owner of the vehicle and it is to ensure that the victims are paid compensation, whatever might be the inter se rights and obligations of the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. Before the Supreme Court, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contend that once an award is passed, it was the duty of the insurer to satisfy the judgment and the insurance company was bound to pay the victims the entire amount covered by various awards. 14. After considering the rival submissions, and relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Accident Act u/s 149(1) of the Act, the Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 to 15, held as follows: Under Section 149(1) of the Act, the Insurance Company has the obligation, subject to the provisions of that section, to satisfy the decree or award made by the court concerned or Tribunal on claims by third parties. Section 149(2) of the Act provides that no sum shall be payable by an insurer unless notice of the proceedings had been given to the Insurance Company before the commencement of the proceedings through the court or the Claims Tribunal, and that it shall not be liable if there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy as indicated in that sub-section. These cover use of the vehicle for hire or reward where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or use for organised racing and speed testing, or use for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or use without sidecar being attached where the vehicle is a motorcycle, or there is a breach of a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification, or a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion, or that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. Under Sub-section (5), it is provided that if the amount which an insurer becomes liable to pay under this section in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would, apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person. Therefore, on the scheme of the Act, the Insurance Company, if it is not able to establish that there is a fundamental breach of a condition which would enable it to disclaim liability, it may have to pay the amount of compensation adjudged by a Claims Tribunal subject of course to its rights to recover from the insured, the owner of the vehicle such excess as it is obliged to pay. ... 12. Section 58 of the Act makes special provisions in regard to transport vehicles. ... 12. Section 58 of the Act makes special provisions in regard to transport vehicles. Sub-section (2) provides that a registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle, shall enter in the record of registration and in the certificate of registration various particulars. Clause (d) provides that if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided. Thus the registration of the vehicle, which alone makes it usable on the road, records the number of passengers to be carried and the certificate of registration also contains that entry. So, an Insurance Company insuring the passengers carried in a vehicle in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, can only insure such number of passengers as are shown in the certificate of registration. The position is reinforced by Section 72 of the Act, which deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-section (2) provides that when a permit is decided to be granted for a stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority can attach to the permit one or more of the conditions specified therein. Clause (vii) is the condition regarding the maximum number of passengers that may be carried in a stage carriage. Overloading also invites a consequence which can be termed penal. Section 86 of the Act provides for cancellation of a permit if any condition contained in the permit is breached. Therefore, the apparent wide words of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act have to be construed harmoniously with the other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 58 and 72 of the Act. As early as in 1846, Dr. Lushington in R. v. Eduljee Byramjee posited that to ascertain the true meaning of a clause in a statute the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself. This Court has accepted this approach in innumerable cases. Thus, the expression "any passenger" must be understood as passenger authorised to be carried in the vehicle and "use of the vehicle" as permitted use of the vehicle. Affording of insurance for more number of passengers than permitted, would be illegal since in that case the manifest intention would be the overloading of the vehicle, something not contemplated by law. Thus, the expression "any passenger" must be understood as passenger authorised to be carried in the vehicle and "use of the vehicle" as permitted use of the vehicle. Affording of insurance for more number of passengers than permitted, would be illegal since in that case the manifest intention would be the overloading of the vehicle, something not contemplated by law. Thus, it is not possible to accept a contention that the insurance can be taken to cover more passengers than permitted by the certificate of registration and the permit as a stage carriage and that it will cover all the passengers overloaded. Of course, in these cases, there is no dispute that the insurance cover took in only the permitted number of passengers. 13. In this situation, the insurance taken out for the number of permitted passengers can alone determine the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of those passengers. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, the duty of the insurer is only to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of the third-party risk. Obviously, this is to the extent the third-party risk is coverable and is covered. Section 149 of the Act speaks of judgment or award being obtained against any person insured by the policy and the liability of the insurer to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder subject to any claim the insurer may have against the owner of the vehicle. Section 149 could not be understood as compelling an Insurance Company to make payment of amounts covered by decrees not only in respect of the number of persons covered by the policy itself but even in respect of those who are not covered by the policy and who have been loaded into the vehicle against the terms of the permit and against the terms of the condition of registration of the vehicle and in terms of violation of a statute. 14. It is true that the provisions in Chapter XI of the Act are intended for the benefit of third parties with a view to ensure that they receive the fruits of the awards obtained by them straightaway with an element of certainty and not to make them wait for a prolonged recovery proceeding as against the owner of the vehicle. It is true that the provisions in Chapter XI of the Act are intended for the benefit of third parties with a view to ensure that they receive the fruits of the awards obtained by them straightaway with an element of certainty and not to make them wait for a prolonged recovery proceeding as against the owner of the vehicle. But from that, it would not be possible to take the next step and find that the Insurance Company is bound to cover liabilities not covered by the contract of insurance itself. The Act only imposes an obligation to take out insurance to cover third-party risks and in the case of stage carriages, the passengers to be carried in the vehicle and can be understood only as passengers authorised or permitted to be carried in the vehicle. 15. In spite of the relevant provisions of the statute, insurance still remains a contract between the owner and the insurer and the parties are governed by the terms of their contract. The statute has made insurance obligatory in public interest and by way of social security and it has also provided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil his obligations as imposed by the contract and as overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may have against the other contracting party, the owner, and meet the claims of third parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay amounts outside the contract of insurance itself or in respect of persons not covered by the contract at all. In other words, the insured is covered only to the extent of the passengers permitted to be insured or directed to be insured by the statute and actually covered by the contract. The High Court has considered only the aspect whether by overloading the vehicle, the owner had put the vehicle to a use not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used. This aspect is different from the aspect of determining the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. This aspect is different from the aspect of determining the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. We are of the view that the Insurance Company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading. 15. While dealing with the question of determining the compensation amount payable to all the victims of the accident and the method to quantify the compensation, the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 16 held as follows: 16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the Insurance Company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the Insurance Company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the Insurance Company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the Insurance Company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the Insurance Company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the Insurance Company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the Insurance Company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately. 16. Let me now consider the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants, in the present case, and the awards passed by the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the insurance company, in respect of the claimants and whether the deceased/insured were covered under Ex.R.1 policy or not? In the decision reported in Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. Shekamma and others, AIR 1994 AP 338 , the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in paragraph 9, has held as follows: The insurer can avoid its liability only if the conditions specified in Section 96(2) are satisfied and not otherwise. The contract between the insurer and the insured may permit the insured to avoid its liability under various circumstances. However, if those circumstances do not satisfy the provisions of Section 96(2) the insurer cannot escape its liability for the third party risks. The contract between the insurer and the insured may permit the insured to avoid its liability under various circumstances. However, if those circumstances do not satisfy the provisions of Section 96(2) the insurer cannot escape its liability for the third party risks. The statute recognises no other condition for an insurer to escape its liability except those given in Section 96(2), whatever the terms of the contract between the insurer and the insured. The terms of the contract between the insurer and the insured determining their rights and liability towards each other are not and should not be confused with the statutory liability of the insurer for the third party risks. If there is a breach of the contract on the part of the insured, the insurer may proceed against the insured. As far as the third party risks are concerned, the liability being statutory, it cannot be overridden by the terms of the contract of insurance, between the parties. 17. In the decision reported in Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat Vs. Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and another, AIR 1997 Bom 242 , the Bombay High Court, in paragraph 9, has held as follows: Admittedly, in this case, the appellant truck owner was carrying more than six persons at the time of accident. However, according to our opinion, the said breach of the condition is not such by which the contract of insurance will be vitiated, as the said term of not carrying more than six, terms of the policy of insurance have not to be construed strictly and to be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract. The main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle and the inmates, who are insured. 18. Yet another judgment reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office, Dharmapuri Vs. A. Govindan and another, (2002) ACJ 539, this Court has observed as follows: ...without knowledge of the insured, if by driver's acts of omission others middle with the vehicle and cause an accident, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance. 19. In the case on hand, it is the case of all the claimants that the deceased and the injured were load men/load women on the fateful day. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance. 19. In the case on hand, it is the case of all the claimants that the deceased and the injured were load men/load women on the fateful day. It is not in dispute that Ex.R.1, insurance policy covered the risk of only six loadmen, other than the driver, cleaner and a non-fare passenger and therefore applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anjana Shyam case, this Court is of the view the appellant Insurance Company cannot be compelled to make payment of amounts covered by decrees not only in respect of the number of persons covered by the policy, but even in respect of those who are not covered by the policy. 20. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the special contract Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy entered into between the insured and the appellant insurance company would be limited only to the number of load men/load women in the goods carriage vehicle and unlimited liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company should be made liable to satisfy the decree and award, in respect of six awards, in terms of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. 21. Admittedly six loadmen/loadwomen were covered under Ex.R1 policy. But, all the persons who travelled in the goods vehicle were said to be coolies. For which of six load men/load women, the insurer has to satisfy the award or decree passed by the Tribunal? Considering the object of the beneficial legislation and the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the loadmen. 22. Following the method evolved by the Supreme Court payable to the victims, the appellant insurance company should take into account, the higher of the six awards in the descending order, add them up and deposit the lump sum, before the Tribunal. The total sum of those six higher awards should be distributed to all the claimants proportionately and that the claimants/respondents have to take appropriate steps to recover the balance award/decree amount from the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent. 23. The total sum of those six higher awards should be distributed to all the claimants proportionately and that the claimants/respondents have to take appropriate steps to recover the balance award/decree amount from the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent. 23. In view of the directions issued in the foregoing paragraphs, the decisions relied on by the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the insurance company in respect of all the claimants/respondents are of no assistance to the case of the respondents. 24. In the result, the appeals preferred by the insurance company are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.