ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JEEVAN JANGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This is an appeal of the Insurance Company under the old Act, i. e. , Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that their liability is limited in terms of the agreement, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be fasten with the entire liability of Rs. 6,10,000/ -. He contended that the liability upon the Insurance Company is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000. From perusal of the terms and conditions which has been annexed with the paper book, we find the liability to the third party is as follows : "subject to the limits of liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of "

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that payment of such sum which is in the terms and conditions of the agreement is a statutory liability under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable beyond the said sum. Section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is quoted below : (a) Where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. Although initially we were under the impression that there should be a permission on the part of the Court below to address, this case is not coming under the provisions of law as regards the permission to be granted for the purpose of appearance in the Court below as an agent of the insured. In case any statutory liability is there, the Insurance Company is obviously liable to pay for the sum but if the statute says otherwise no Court can compel a party to do something beyond the scope of the statute, therefore, the permission or no permission at the relevant point of time is immaterial. This observation is made because of several questions have been raising now a days about the same. For the fitness of the fact this application arose under the old Act, i. e. , Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Judgment and award was passed on 14th February, 2000 prior to the establishment of such question as to whether the permission is liable to be granted to the Insurance Company or not. Since at such situation there was no occasion for considering the same, we cannot hold that the appeal is not maintainable, particularly when statute is directly supporting the case of the appellant. The case of the appellant is also fortified by the five Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. C. M. Jaya & Ors. , reported in 2002 (1) JCLR 766 (SC) : 2002 (3) T. A. C. 434 (SC) and also an unreported Judgment arising out of SLP (C) No. 691/2002 in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2003, Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Shakuntala Garg & Ors. wherein the similar question arose.