SUDESH KOHLI Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the appellants/claimants seek to impugn the directions of the Award dated 3.5.1994 passed by the Tribunal. The basic ground in this appeal is that the Tribunal though awarded a compensation of Rs.4.5 lacs but restricted the liability of respondent No.3 Insurance Company only to Rs.50,000/- holding that the insurance cover was not for unlimited liability and the risk for third party was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 01.11.1977 Shri Suresh Chander Kohli who was aged 35 years was going on his two wheeler scooter on Ring Road near Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar when he was hit by a truck said to be driven rashly and negligently. He died on the spot. As already stated above, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4.5 lacs to the claimants/appellants.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the present issue pertains to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. He submits that at that point of time the third party liability was not unlimited like the present statute. He further points out that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the limit of third party liability was fixed at Rs.50,000/- and the respondent No.3 Insurance Company had to specify the liability that may arise in favour of a third party. In case the liability was more it could recover the excess amount above Rs.50,000/- from the insured/owner of the offending vehicle. He relies on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which are on the record of the Trial court Ex.R-2. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vimal Devi and Ors., 2010 ACJ 2878 a judgment of this Court following the aforesaid judgment i.e. the case of Gurcharan Kaur & Anr. vs. Raja Ram & Anr., 2011 182 DLT 494. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that before any liability is fastened or any recovery rights are given to respondent No.3 company, it would be necessary that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, namely, respondents No.1,2 and 4 should also be present.