NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in this appeal has primarily challenged tore that on 21st March,1981 at about 5.30 p.m. deceased Tej Ram, aged 33 years with Mr.Dev Karan who was sitting on the pillion seat were going from Janakpuri to Ballabhgarh on Mehrauli-Badarpur Road, when a Truck bearing No.DLG-6544 driven by Jeet Singh came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction on wrong side hit the motor-cycle driven by Tej Ram deceased. As a result of this accident both the driver as well as pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down. They were dragged by the truck for about 6-8 paces. They sustained serious injuries resulting in their death of both. Deceased Tej Ram as per claim petition was earning about Rs.40,000.00 per annum through cultivation and agriculture. He left behind his wife, four sons and a mother. Legal heirs of deceased Tej Ram filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicle Act (in short the Act) claiming a sum of Rs.five lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal held that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, deceased Tej Ram was killed. Tribunal rejected the plea of limited liability raised by the present appellant and by an award dated 14th September,1989 awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600.00 in favour of the claimant with cost and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

(2.) As already pointed out above Insurance Company's only plea in this appeal is that its liability was limited to Rs.50,000.00 hence this appellant's liability with owner and driver of truck could not be made joint and several. At the outset it must be mentioned that neither the Insurance Policy was produced nor the witness of the appellant proved that it was an 'Act Policy' or that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.50,000.00 only. In the absence of there being any evidence produced by the appellant, to my mind, the Tribunal rightly concluded that its liability could not be called a limited one nor could be called "Act Liability". In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) At this stage Mr.Goyal appearing for the respondent contends that he is entitled to interest because when this appeal was filed the present appellant sought stay against the release of the award amount in claimant's favour. On account of appellant's seeking stay, this Court directed that half of the awarded amount be paid without security and the balance half on furnishing a bank guarantee. Since respondents were failed to furnish bank guarantee in order to receive the balance half of their amount, hence the respondents are entitled to interest on the amount paid to them on furnishing bank guarantee from the date bank guarantee was furnished till date. In order to support his arguments, he placed reliance on the decision of our own High Court's decision in the case of Satyawati Pathak Vs. Hari Ram, reported in 1983 ACJ 424. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Satyawati Pathak (supra) coupled with the fact that at the instance of the appellant the respondent was forced to furnish the bank guarantee, I think the contentions of counsel for the respondent are justified that respondent should be awarded interest. Accordingly, it is ordered that respondents are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the appellant on the fifty per cent amount received after furnishing the bank guarantee. They would be entitled to receive interest from the date the bank guarantee was furnished till the passing of this order. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed. The bank guarantee furnished by the respondents stands discharged.