H C AGRAWAL Vs. JASULI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An accident took place on 2nd January, 1987 on Kashipur-Ranikhet Road. Sri Bhola Dutt Bhatt and Sri Moti Ram Tiwari were walking on the extreme left side of the road. The offending truck was driven rashly and negligently swerved to its right and crushed Sri Bhola Dutt Bhatt and Sri Moti Ram Tiwari. As a result of this accident, Sri Moti Ram Tiwari died on the spot and Sri Bhola Dutt Bhatt died in the hospital on the same day. The heirs of the deceased subsequently filed a claim application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, gave an award dated 26th November, 1988. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence in driving the truck and that the victims did not contribute to any negligence and were not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal found that the vehicle was insured but had a limited liability and accordingly, directed compensation amounting to Rs. 1,80,000 along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be paid to the claimants of Sri Bhola Dutt Bhatt and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the claimants of Sri Moti Ram Tiwari. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and the owner will pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,000 to the claimants of deceased Sri Bhatt. The Tribunal further held that the Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and the owner will pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants of the deceased Sri Tiwari. This bifurcation of the compensation was made on account of the fact that the Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company on the basis of the policy was limited to Rs. 1.50 lacs in view of Section II-1(i) of the Policy which is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act is Section 95(2)(b) of the Act.

(3.) The Insurance Company accepted the award and paid the compensation and did not prefer any appeal. The owner also paid the entire amount of his share to the claimants under protest and has preferred two separate appeals, which are being decided together. Heard Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company. The only issue argued before this Court is whether the insurance policy issued in favour of the appellant limited the liability of the Insurance Company or not. According to the appellant, a higher premium was paid by the appellant and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. On the other hand, the Insurance Company contends that in view of Section 95(2)(b) of the Act, no award in excess of Rs. 1.50 lacs could be awarded against the Insurance Company.