NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KOWSALYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Sri M. Sowri Raju.

(2.) THE only point in this appeal that has been urged is limited to the extent of liability of the insurance Company, in the matter of compensation awarded. As regard the finding of facts, it has not been challenged nor the quantum of compensation has been challenged. Sri Sowri Raju contended that the question of extent of Companies liability has not been examined. Learned counsel contended that company does not dispute its liability to the extent which is prescribed under the Act. Learned Counsel contended that the fastening of liability for entire amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 68,000/- on the Company is illegal. Learned Counsel contended that is liability is only to the extent of 50,000 + interest and the costs. He invited my attention to Sub-section (2), Clause (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as the occurrence in this case had taken place on 23. 11. 1985, that is prior to the coming into force of Act of 1988. Learned Counsel contended that the liability for more sum than the one prescribed under the Act, the additional premium had to be paid to the tune of Rs. 150/-, and the Tribunal had to examine this aspect of the matter and if there was no evidence as to above before the Court and it was admitted case that the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation, Learned Counsel contended that the statutory liability could be fastened and no more, unless other heirs of deceased or injured or the owner of the vehicle prove that additional premium was paid for that liability, may be unlimited liability or otherwise.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant an application has also been filed seeking permission to file the copies of the policies taken by respondent No. 4 for the period 29th October, 1985 to 28th october, 1986 and the other policy from 13th November, 1986 to 12th November, 1987, with respect to the vehicle in question. Learned Counsel contended that the statutory liability is not denied and interest of justice requires that this document for a just decision may be taken for consideration, as for increased third party liability if additional premium has been paid and so this application, learned Counsel contended be allowed and appeal may be decided in terms of studied principles of law. Though name of Sri M. S. Basavaraju appears for respondents 1 to 3, but he has not appeared today. Respondent No. 4 has also been served, but none appears on his behalf.