MANMOHAN SARUP KAUSHAL Vs. MELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of nine appeals; three bearing No. 126, 158 & 159 of 1975 being filed by the insurance company, three bearing No. 106, 107 & 108 of 1975 being filed by the owner of the offending vehicle and three bearing No. 51, 66 & 74 of 1975 being filed by the claimants. All of them are directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 20.12 1974 by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,190.00 on account of the death of Mrs. Prem Lata Kaushal and Rs.8,000.00 on account of death of Miss. Shobhana besides Rs. 32,520.00 to Miss. Rachna on account of personal injuries. In all, the award is for Rs. 60,710.00 out of Which the liability of the insurance company has been limited to Rs. 50,000-.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that on 11.6.1970 at about 11.15 at night, truck No. DLL-5761, which was owned by the owner Roop Narayan and driven by his employee Mela Ram ran over the deceased causing their death and causing injuries to Miss. Rachna, appellant. Mr. Manmohan Sarup, the husband of Mrs. Prem Lata K-aushal deceased and father of Miss. Shobhana, deceased claimed compensation for their death while Miss. Rachna, minor claimed compensation for her injuries. In this way, three claims petitions were filed which have been tried together and disposed of by the award as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved the insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle and the claimants have filed these appeals and I have heard Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Advocate for the insurance company, Mr. H.S. Dhir, Advocate for the owner of the vehicle and Mr. O.P. Goya), Advocate for the claimants.

(3.) I shall take up the appeals of the insurance company. The main contention vigorously advanced by Mr, Dhanda before us is that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 20,000.00 as the policy cover in respect of the offending vehicle was issued prior to the commencement of the amending Act and so the increase in the extent of the liability effected by the amending Act does not apply to the case. The provisions of law as they stood prior to the amendment are contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Chapter 8 thereof is relevant for purposes of these appeals Section 9-4 (1) lays down,...that no person shall use a motor vehicle in a a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person... a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter. Section 95 prescribes the conditions and requirements of the statutory policy of insurance. Subsection (2) states that subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of one accident upto the following limits namely- (b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in Which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment : (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all; Sub-section (4) provides that a policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until they are issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. Sub-section (5) provides that notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.