ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subject-matter of impugnment in the instant appeal is the award dated 31.1.1987 rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 23 of 1986, Ram Autar v. Ram Prakash whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,400/-together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent with effect from 6.5.1986, which is the date on which the claim petition was filed, till the date of actual payment of the compensation to the claimants with a further direction that the entire amount of compensation would be payable by the appellant insurance company.

(2.) For sensitive appreciation of the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts may be delineated. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Ashok Kumar who, as held by the Tribunal, had got concussed in the accident which occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, i.e., truck No. UPC 3108 being driven on the fateful day by Pappu, respondent No. 4, who, as further held by the Tribunal, had a valid driving licence. Ram Prakash, respondent No. 3, is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-as against which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 62,400/-. The finding that the accident took place as a result of actionable rash and negligent driving and the finding that the driver had a valid driving licence were rightly not challenged by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge has been telescoped to the only submission made by Mr. A.B. Saran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation beyond the statutory limit postulated by Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. Mr. R.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents, canvassed that the insurance company was rightly fastened with the liability to pay the entire amount of compensation in that, urged the learned counsel, the policy was a comprehensive one, indemnifying the liability of the insured beyond statutory limits.

(3.) I have bestowed my sedulous consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The appeal, in my opinion, has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Section 95 of the Act stipulates requirements of policy and limits of liability of insurer. According to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance may be a policy which is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer and insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)( i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is evident that the liability of the insurer under Clause (i) aforesaid is 'in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, any person' or damage to any property of a third party not being a passenger while Clause (ii) is attracted in the case of death of, or bodily injury to, any passenger of 'a public service vehicle' which term, in my opinion, includes a goods vehicle.