Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2753 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Bhuraji

2019-10-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the matter has been heard finally. 3. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company claiming the following relief: "It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned award be modified and the liability of the appellant be ordered to be limited to a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- only. The appellant be awarded costs through out." 4. The unfortunate accident had happened on 12.09.1989 when deceased Vijay Chouhan was going in a Taxi Car bearing registration No. RST-4289 being driven by the driver Gokul Ram and the same turned turtle near Village Vayad, resulting into the death of Vijay Chouhan. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has demonstrated from the policy cover as well as from the discussion in the impugned order made, while dealing with Issue No. 4 that the liability of the Insurance Company for every passenger was limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that for this purpose, Rs. 12/- premium was charged and there could not have been an unlimited liability in a case of a passenger. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submits that had it been a third party insurance and had it been that the deceased not occupying the place in the capacity of a passenger, then it was open for the learned Tribunal to have given the award, but once the policy itself was of limited liability, i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per passenger then it was not open for the learned Tribunal to have saddled the liability upon the Insurance Company to the extent more than Rs. 15000/- per passenger. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon the following precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court: 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhoop Singh and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 286 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 278 8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhoop Singh and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 286 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 278 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has also drawn attention of this Court towards the earlier law, which was Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was governing the field in question and the relevant provision of the same reads as follows: "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which:- (a)...................... (b)...................... (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)...................... (b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers 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, in a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all. (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submits that, once the liability for the passenger was stipulated, then the same could not have exceeded to Rs. 15,000/- to the extent of Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has further shown that the deceased having been taken as a third party, even when he was admittedly an occupant/ passenger, was not in accordance with law. 11. After learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the policy itself was for the purpose of passenger to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. This Court also finds that the precedent law cited by counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is directly applicable. The fact of the claimant being a passenger/occupant clearly defies the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal that he could be treated as third party. 12. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The order is modified to the extent that the liability of paying the compensation, shall be upon the other respondents. The fact of the claimant being a passenger/occupant clearly defies the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal that he could be treated as third party. 12. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The order is modified to the extent that the liability of paying the compensation, shall be upon the other respondents. The appellant-Insurance Company stands exonerated from any liability under the award. However, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- and the rest of the amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle. Any amount which is already paid in excess of Rs. 15,000/- shall be recoverable from the owner. All the pending applications stand disposed of.