NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide order dtd. 4/1/2000 dismissed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and allowed the cross objections filed by the claimants and awarded full compensation to the claimants.

(2.) Kanhaiyalal and insured with appellant New India Assurance Co. in a rash and negligent manner dashed against scooter, as a result of which Vimal Kumar and Rameshchand died. The LRs of Rameshchand claimed compensation of Rs.15,02,180.00, while LRS of deceased Vimal Kumar sought compensation to the extent of Rs.7,61,000.00 in claim case Nos. 83/89 and 101/89 respectively. The appellant and non-applicants/respondents filed common written statements and resisted the claim. The plea taken was that Vimal Kumar had no valid driving licence. He was driving scooter in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. No plea of the limited liability was taken in the written statement by the insurance company. The tribunal after appreciation of evidence granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the LRS of deceased Rameshchand and Rs.3,75,000.00 to the LRS of Vimal Kumar and directed the Insurance Company as well as the driver and owner to pay the same jointly and severally.

(3.) Aggrieved against the order, the Insurance Company filed the appeals against the award before the High Court. The claimants also filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation amount. It was submitted before the High Court on behalf of the Insurance Company that the liability of the insurance company under Sec. 95 of the Act is limited to Rs.50,000.00 in one accident. It was contended that the tribunal has wrongly granted the amount of compensation against the two claims and more than the permissible limit of Rs.50,000.00. The High Court considered the matter and after reviewing of the matter, it found that this plea was not taken in the written statement. It was also held that the entire policy was not filed and only first page of the policy was filed which too was blurred. The High Court further held that limit of Rs.50,000.00 prescribed for damage to property and not for injury or death, which is covered under Sec. II-1(i). Non-mentioning of any amount in Sec. II-1(ii), in view of the facts of this case, gives impression that the liability of the appellant with respect to death or bodily injury was unlimited, and, accordingly, the High Court upheld the order of the tribunal, dismissed the appeal of Insurance Company.