ANGOORA DEVI Vs. MAHESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 16.01.1996 passed in Suit No.445/87.

(2.) The factual matrix is that on 15.10.1987, one Ram Saran, aged 43 years, a carpenter by vocation, was travelling in bus No.DEP 6068 owned by the respondent No.1 and driven by the respondent No.2. While he was alighting from the said bus, and his one foot was on the foot board and the other on the road, the respondent No.2 - driver all of a sudden started the bus, and the deceased fell down and came under the front wheel of the bus, sustaining fatal injuries. A Claim Petition was filed by his legal representatives, being his widow, four sons and two daughters, impleading the respondent No.1-owner, the respondent No.2-driver and the respondent No.3-M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the bus in question. The respondent No.1 denied the factum of the accident. The respondent No.2 did not care to contest the petition and was proceeded ex parte in default of appearance. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company took in defence the specific plea that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to ' 15,000/- only as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the deceased being a passenger and not a third party.

(3.) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 of the bus owned by the respondent No.1. As regards the plea of the Insurance Company that the deceased was a passenger and hence the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to ' 15,000/- only, the learned Tribunal, relying upon certain decisions, held that the deceased Ram Saran was a passenger as he was alighting at the bus stop, which was his destination. It further held that in view of the fact that a specific plea of limited liability had been raised by the Insurance Company and notice to produce the original policy had been given to the respondent No.1-owner of the bus in question, who had failed to produce the same, the copy of the policy (Ex.RW2/4) produced by the Insurance Company was admissible in evidence, wherein the limit of liability of the Insurance Company was mentioned as ' 15,000/- only.