JAMESKUTTY JACOB Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This appeal was earlier allowed by a judgment and order of this Court dated august 5, 2003, reported in Jameskutty Jacob v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2003) 7 SCC 131. The appeal was allowed on a finding that the vehicle in question was not shown to be a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward so as to limit the liability of the insurer to Rs. 50,000/- under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the Act").

(3.) The said judgment also recorded the fact that nobody had appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and the Court was informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on record to show that the vehicle in question was a taxi. Thus, the said judgment of this Court proceeded on the basis that the vehicle in question which met with the accident was not a taxi. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated August 5, 2003.