UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AHEMMEDKUTTY M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITHOUT alleging any breach of policy conditions within the meaning of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company has admitted the accident, with contention to get their liability limited to the statutory limit. In such a case, can it be said that the insurer has to produce the insurance policy to claim the benefit of the statutory limit? Can a contention for the benefit of the statutory limit of coverage be equated with any breach of policy conditions?

(2.) M /s United India Insurance Company Ltd. as plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of money through its Divisional Manager. The first defendant was the registered owner of bus bearing Reg.No.KLM 438 and the second defendant was its duly appointed driver as on 15.8.1984. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.8.1984 whereby the rider and pillion rider of a motorbike became injured. The said injured persons preferred claims for compensation before the Motor Accident Claim's Tribunal, Manjeri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') as O.P.(MV) No.508 of 1984 and O.P.(MV) No.509 of 1984 wherein the first defendant was the second respondent, the second defendant was the first respondent, and the plaintiff was the third respondent. The plaintiff filed written statements in both the claim petitions, admitting the coverage of the vehicle with a third party (public risk) policy with a maximum limit of Rs.50,000/- arising out of any one accident. It was also contended that as per Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of the plaintiff under the said policy was limited to a maximum of Rs.50,000/- for any one accident. The Tribunal passed Ext.A2 award dated 18.12.1985 for an amount of Rs.54,000/- in O.P.(MV)508 of 1984 and Rs.70,150/- in O.P.(MV) 509 of 1984 in favour of the petitioners and directed the plaintiff to satisfy the entire award, by overlooking and bypassing the limit of the contractual liability as well as statutory liability, by projecting a ground that the plaintiff's counsel had not produced the insurance policy.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the excess amounts of Rs.25,697/- paid in O.P.(MV)508 of 1984 and Rs.40,103/- paid in O.P.(MV)No.509 of 1984 from the first defendant. Ext.A6 demand notice caused to be issued by the plaintiff through their lawyer, could invite Ext.A7 reply in which some untenable contentions were resorted to.