ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD Vs. CHIMAJIRAO KANHOJIRAO SHIRKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant insurance company is the original defendent. The respondents are the original plantiffs. They are the parents of the deceased Mahindra Shirke, and educated young boy, aged 22 years in the year 1980 when the accident took place. The said Mahindra had obtained loan from the Maharashtra Finance Corporation and Bank of Baroda under the Educated Unemployment Scheme for purchasing a goods truck in the year 1977 and actually purchased the truck bearing No. MHL 7170. The documents were naturally executed in favour of the Bank of Baroda, Kolhapur. It was said to be the condition precedent under the scheme that the goods truck should be driven by the owner himself. The said Mahindra had a driving licence for heavy vehicles and was stated to be in fact driving the truck ever since the truck was purchased. The truck was insured under the Commercial. Vehicles Comprehensive Policy with the appellant Insurance Company. The risk of personal injury and property damage was covered to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The truck itself was insured for Rs. 1,27,000/- for damage to the truck. The truck met with the accident on January 8, 1980 as a result of which the said Mahindra died on the spot. The truck was also partly damaged.

(2.) THE said Mahindra was unmarried at the time of his death. His heirs were his old parents, the plantiffs, who filed the Motor Accident Claim Application against the Insurance Company on April 18, 1980 and claimed the insured amount for the personal injury to Mahindra and property as the heirs of the said deceased Mahindra. There was exchange of correspondence between the plaintiffs and the Insurance Company, Eventually, by its letter dated November 25, 1983, the insurance company agreed to pay for the damage to the truck assessed at Rs. 2,964.40 only and refused to pay the amount for personal injury resulting in the death of the said Mahindra.

(3.) THE Insurance Company filed its written statement at Exh. 15. It raised a number of objection. In the present proceedings we are not concerned with objections other than the following two objections, namely, (i) an additional premium of Rs. 134/- was paid apparently to cover the risk for unlimited personal injury and property damage up to Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the expression 'personal injury' in the cover was wrongly typed in the policy and that the injury or the death of the owner of the truck was not covered by the insurance policy, and (ii) in any event the plaintiffs had given no basis for claiming damages at Rs. 6,00,000/- on account thereof. The learned Judge faithfully summarised the objections taken by the Insurance Company in pars 2 of his judgment and framed as many as 10 issues for decision. For the purpose of this appeal', only two issues, namely, issue Nos. 1 and 5 are relevant. The issues read thus: