UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUREKHA BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal turns .around the interpretation of the provisions of Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Indian Motor Tariffs (Schedule of Premium) issued by the appellant. That the idea underlying clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is to provide cover with respect to the passengers to be carried for hire or reward, and therefore, the liability of the insurer is to be covered by this clause. Where the policy covers wider risks than those prescribed under Section 95 (2)(b) and that the insurer had undertaken to indemnify the insured for his liability with regard to the death of any person, the Court would be competent to make an award directing the insurer to pay such compensation to the claimant for which the insured is found liable. The question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the liability of the insurer (appellant herein) was restricted to an extent mentioned in the Insurance Policy and/or under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 95 of the Act? Is it that the insurer undertook to indemnify the insured for the liability for and on behalf of insured to an unlimited extent?

(2.) In order to answer the above questions, we may have glance over the facts which are relevant to determine these points. Respondents 1 to 4 (claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (in short the Tribunal) are the legal heirs of deceased J.S.Bakshi. Mr. J.S.Bakshi was about 44 years old at the time of his death. He was working as Income Tax Officer, Grade-l, on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,400.00 He was assessed to income tax. On 7th May,1987 at about 5.45 pm Mr.Bakshi was going on his scooter one Smt.Shashi Prabha Sehgal was sitting on his pillion seat, when a Three Wheeler Scooter suddenly appeared from India Gate-Rajpath Road driven in a rash and negligent manner by Mr. Jasbir Singh. Driver Jasbir Singh was driving the three wheeler scooter rashly and recklessly that without stopping at the traffic signals violently rammed into the front portion of the scooter of the deceased. As a result of that impact the deceased as well as the pillion rider Smt. Sehgal were thrown away. The right leg of the deceased came under the wheel of the three wheeler scooter. It got crushed beside deceased received injuries all over his body. He was removed to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital wherefrom after getting first-aid he was shifted to East-West Medical Centre Golf Links. Since his condition continued deteriorating and in order to get better medical facilities he was shifted to Holy Family Hospital. There he succumbed to his injuries on 8th May,1987. He left behind his widow, a minor son and daughter and an aged mother. It was claimant's case that deceased was an intelligent officer. He was expected to be promoted as Assistant Commissioner and thereafter as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with higher emoluments. Because of this unexpected death due to no fault of his, his family suffered loss of companionship, status beside financial loss. Three Wheeler Scooter was insured with this appellant. Driver as well as this appellant were impleaded as parties.

(3.) Before dealing with the legal questions raised, we must not forget that road accidents victims are a pathetic lots. Dealing with such case, I am reminded of the observation of Devies in Preface to 3rd Edition of the Law of Road Traffic: