UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LYDIA PREMVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad, dated October 8,1986 made in O.P. No.31 of 1984, the only point which is pressed before me is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to only Rs. 50,000/-, the policy being the Act policy and that the Tribunal erred in making the insurance company liable for the entire amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.

(2.) To appreciate the contention raised before me it is necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to this appeal. One Satish Prem Vardhan, hereinafter referred to as late Mr. Vardhan, was going on a motor cycle bearing No.ADB 9753 near Grammar School, Abid Road, Hyderabad on 29-8-1983 at 10-50 A.M. A bus bearing No.AAT 9502, which was coming from opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the above said motor cycle and caused injuries to the said Vardhan and the pillion rider and that the said Vardhan succumbed to the injuries on the very same night in Osmania General Hospital where he was admitted immediately after the accident. The wife and children of late Mr.Vardhan laid a claim for Rs.3,50,000/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of the petition till payment and proportionate costs.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Insurance Company it is denied that the bus involved in the accident was insured with their Insurance Company or that the 1st respondent was the owner of the said bus. The other defences raised by the Insurance Company were ignored by the Tribunal as being beyond the scope of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After considering the evidence placed on record by both sides, as already stated above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- to respondents 1 to 6 herein. As there was no issue with regard to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal did not consider the question of liability. The relevant issue framed and decided by the Tribunal was, "Whether the bus No.AAT 9502 was not insured with the 2nd respondent at the relevant time ?" On that issue the Tribunal recorded the finding that the appellant-Insurance Company was the insurer of the above said vehicle. The Tribunal also noted, at the end of the discussion under the above said issue, that the Insurance Company (2nd respondent therein) filed a copy of the policy, at the conclusion of the trial, which was marked as Ex.C.1 and which shows that the 2nd respondenthas given up the above plea and admitted that the bus was insured with it at the relevant time. The Tribunal, however, noted in para 49 of the judgment that there was no plea regarding the limit of the liability being Rs.50,000/-. It was further observed by the Tribunal in that very same paragraph that he (the learned PresidingOfficer of the Tribunal) had also pointed out this aspect in the order dated 23-8-1986 made in I.A.No.863 of 1986 and that inspite of that no steps were taken to amend the pleadings.