M K KUNHIMOHAMMED Vs. P A AHMEDKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of a bus bearing No. KLD-9327 which was being run as a stage carriage. On 24-7-1978 while the said bus was carrying passengers it met with an accident and Saheeda, who was one of the passengers in the bus, died as a consequence of the said accident. The accident took place, according to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle who had been employed by the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the compensation payable by the petitioner to the legal representatives of Saheeda was Rs. 56,800/-. It, however, held that the liability of the insurer to indemnify the petitioner was limited to Rs. 5,000/- as the policy specifically limited the insurer's liability to what had been provided by S. 95(2)(b)(ii)(2) and (4), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The said appeal was dismissed. This petition is filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioner up to a limit of Rs. 75,000/- under S. 95(2)(b)(ii)(2) of the Act and that the further limit mentioned in S. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. The relevant part of S. 95 of the Act during the relevant time read as follows:

(3.) Section 95 of the Act sets out the requirements of the policies of insurance which must be taken by the owners of motor vehicles and the limits of liabilities thereunder. A policy of insurance should subject to the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 95 of the Act cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the limits specified in sub-s. (2) of S. 95 of the Act. Clause (a) of Section 95(2) of the Act during the relevant time provided that where the vehicle was a goods vehicle the policy should cover the liability up to Rs. 50,000/- in all including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of death of or bodily injury to the workmen (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle. This clause came up for consideration before this Court in Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi (1982) 1 SCR 860. In that case this Court held that clause (a) of S. 95(2) of the Act qualified the extent of the insurer's liability by the use of the unambiguous expression "in all and since that expression was specially introduced by an amendment, it must be allowed its full play. The legislature must be presumed to have intended what it had plainly said. But cl. (a) did not stand alone and was not the only provision to be considered for determining the outside limit of the insurer's liability. It was necessary to give effect to the words 'any one accident' which formed part in the opening part of sub-s. (2) of S. 95 of the Act. The Court, therefore, held that if more than one person was injured during the course of the same transaction each one of the persons must be deemed to have met with an accident. Accordingly, the Court held that each of the persons who was entitled to claim compensation under cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of S. 95 of the Act was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was the limit prescribed by the said clause on the date on which the accident, referred to in that case, occurred. The Court, however, distinguished the decision of this Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. (1971) Suppl. SCR 20 which was a case in which cl, (b) of sub-s. (2) of S. 95 of the Act had arisen for consideration. In doing so the Court observed thus :