ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. OLIVIA VAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the Insurance Company, which is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao on 17th December, 1991, in Claim Petition No.241 of 1988 filed by the claimants, the widow and the sons and daughters of the deceased who met with a fatal accident on 16th May, 1988. The deceased was knocked down by a passenger mini bus owned by one Shri Pankaj Shukla, respondent no.2, before the Tribunal and respondent no.16 before this Court. The respondent no.1 was the driver of the said bus which was insured with respondent no.3 before the Tribunal and the present appellants. The liability of the Insurance Company in the policy which was valid for the period from 6th August, 1987 to 5th August, 1988, was Rs.50,000/-. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle was a passenger vehicle and there is also no dispute that the deceased was run over by the said passenger bus. There is also no dispute that the deceased died on account of the said accident. The widow and the other claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased who filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal, claiming an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased in the said accident.

(2.) BOTH the sides after completion of the pleadings adduced evidence, oral and documentary. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal held that the appellant, the Insurance Company, was liable to pay a sum of Rs.88,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final payment, after adjusting a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded to the claimants in proceedings under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A cost of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded. The Tribunal held that under the amended law, the minimum liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the third party was raised to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the Insurance Company that its liability under the amended law was only Rs.50,000/-, as contemplated under Section 95 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that its liability was limited to only Rs.50,000/-. After holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay jointly and severally to the claimants a total compensation of Rs.88,000/-, with accrued interest at the rate of 10% from the date of filing of the petition till final payment.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, does not seriously dispute the legal position as aforestated, though the learned counsel tried to point out that vide the 1982 Amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. He tried to draw support from paragraph 5 of the Judgment in the case of Indarjeet Singh & Co. vs. Kamal Prakash Pawar & Ors. (supra). The learned counsel, however, after debate in the Court and reading correctly the relevant section, fairly conceded that that was not the correct legal position and he fairly accepted that the liability of the Insurance Company qua the passenger buses involving accidents with other passengers, namely third parties, is upto Rs.50,000/-. He, however, appealed sentimentally to the conscience of this Court that the deceased person who was aged 33 years was the only earning hand of his widowed mother and had died in the accident in question in the prime time of his life. He further pointed out that the deceased has other brothers and sisters, who being not employed were wholly dependent upon the deceased. He also submitted that though the claim of the claimants was Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.88,000/- and as his clients were not properly advised, they did not carry the matter further. He further fervently submitted that in view of the very paltry sum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court should not interfere with the award of compensation, considering the fact that the claimant no.1 herself was a widow and the deceased was the only working son and there were others who were not employed and not working, who were dependent upon the deceased.