NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the insurer of truck bearing registration No. M.P.A.-2280, which met with an accident with another truck bearing registration No. UHJ-8287. The claimants were travelling alongwith buffalo in truck No. MPA-2280 alongwith his brother-in-law. Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.3.1994 has held that the accident has been caused due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and, therefore, apportioned the liability to the extent of fifty percent on both the trucks. Tribunal has awarded as sum of Rs. 1.20 lacs, out of which appellant has been held liable to pay Rs. 60,000/-. Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Prior to 14.11.1994, under Section 147(b)(i) of the Act liability of insurance company was in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party. By Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 the word "including owner of the goods or his authorized representative" has been added. The question whether the word "any person includes the owner of the goods or his authorized representative prior to 14.11.1994 or the amendment is clarificatory in nature came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others . The Apex Court held as follows:

(3.) The Apex Court in the cases of Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh and another, , : 2007 (1) TAC 15 (SC), as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others, , : 2004 (2) TAC 1 (SC), has allowed interest @ 9% per annum and following the aforesaid two decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salil Prakash Gupta, , : 2012 (3) TAC 359, has also awarded interest only @ 9% and modified the order of the Tribunal to that extent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the decision, referred hereinabove, I am of the view that the interest awarded @ 10% is excessive and it is accordingly reduced to 9%. The order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent only.