PANJALA RAJAIAH Vs. MAMIDI MANIKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the question arises with reference to the liability of the insurance company under S 95 (2) (a) and S 95 (2) (b) and as to the liability of the Company under a policy of 'comprehensive insurance' and as to when the Company can be said to have undertaken 'additional liability' over and above the statutory liability.

(2.) The appeal is by the claimant aged 60 years (in O P No 59/85) consequent to the death of his wife (aged 55 yrs), his son and daughter-in-law, in a single accident on 12-4-1981. The total claim in the tribunal is in a sum of Rs 40,000-/ out of which Rs 15.000/- was awarded i e. Rs 8,000/- due to death of wife Rs 3,500/- as loss of consortium, Rs. 3,500/- towards pain and suffering.

(3.) In the appeal, it is argued for the appellant by Sri K. Mallikarjuna Sastri that compensation should have been awarded properly by taking into account the loss of 'services' of the wife. It is also argued that the appellant is entitled to compensation consequent on the death of his son and daughter-in-law. On the other hand it is argued for the respondents that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation for the death of his daughter in-law It is also argued for the owner of the vehicle by Sri Narayanarao that under the policy the Insurance Company is liable for the whole amount as this is a comprehensive policy and as extra premium is collected. On the other hand it is argued for the Insurance Company by Sri K. Ragaavachary, that its liability is limited upto Rs 5000/- for each passenger and overall upto Rs 75,000/-. There is no 'additional liability' undertaken.