HARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals, namely first appeal from Order No. 631 of 1978 and First Appeal Order No. 632 of 1978 have been taken up together in view of the fact that both the appeals arise out of an accident held on 15.12.1968 at 9.45 p.m. by petrol tanker No. UOPU 4074. From the record it appears that First Appeal From Order No. 631 of 1978 was dismissed for default on 18.8.1991. A restoration petition was filed on 30.1.1992. Heard learned Counsel for both sides and after considering the submissions and the facts thereto we find that the grounds for nonappearance of the learned Counsel are satisfactory. The petition for restoration is, therefore, allowed and the case is restored to its original file and number. Final hearing of the appeal was thereafter taken on considering both the parties.

(2.) THESE two appeals arise out of the Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 7 of 1969 and 16 of 1969 started by Sita Ram and Chhitfar Mal as claimants. It has been stated that both these two persons were injured in that accident. Sita Ram was a passes by. While the tanker, which according to the prosecution was being driven at high speed, rashly and negligently, dashed a telephone pole and thereafter ran into tea shop. The stone chajja of the aforesaid tea shop was smashed and the wooden door of that tea shop was blown, Chhittar Mal was the owner of the tea shop. Both the injured were sent to Hospital and treated there. The learned Tribunal Judge awarded Rs. 64358.94 to Sita Ram in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 7 of 1969 and Rs. 20,000/- to Chhittar Mal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 16 of 1969. In both the cases learned Judge passed an order that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the injured persons and the balance will be paid by the owner (in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 16 of 1969) and by the owner and driver (in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 7 of 1969). Being aggrieved by the said award of the learned Tribunal Judge the owner of the tanker preferred these two appeals.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has again submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge could not appreciate the implication of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as amended in 1956 and awarded Rs. 10,000/- only against the Insurance Company in each case. He has submitted that the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- to each of the injured persons. He has referred the case of Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors. wherein it has been held that the insurer's liability is to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- where more than one person is injured or died. But it has also been held that it extends in respect of each of the person so affected in the course of the same accident. It appears from the record that apportionment of the award was not properly done by the learned Tribunal Judge. It also appears that in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 7 of 1969 he awarded Rs. 64,358.94 in all and ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 10,000/- and balance would be paid by the owner and driver. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 16 of 1969 learned Judge awarded Rs. 20,000/ - to the injured and ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 10,000/- and the balance would be paid by the owner.