NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 325 of 1993 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramila) and M.A. No. 326 of 1993 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi) which arise out of the awards dated 29.4.1993 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case Nos. 83 and 101 of 1989 respectively.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.7.89 the deceased Vimal Kumar was going on his scooter with Rameshchand as pillion rider. When they reached near village Tikdijogi, non-applicant/respondent Gafoor Khan came from opposite direction driving bus No. MEN 1188 belonging to non-applicant No. 2 Kanhaiyalal and insured with appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which Rameshchand and Vimal Kumar died. The L.Rs. of Rameshchand claimed compensation of Rs. 15,02,180 while the L.Rs. of deceased Vimal Kumar sought compensation of Rs. 7,61,000 in the Claim Case Nos. 83 and 101 of 1989 respectively. The appellant and the non-applicants/respondents filed common written statements and resisted the claim and, inter alia, pleaded that the deceased Vimal Kumar had no valid driving licence. He drove his scooter in rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. The insurance company did not take the plea of limited liability in its written statement. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the L.Rs. of the deceased Rameshchand and Rs. 3,75,000 to the L.Rs. of Vimal Kumar and directed the insurance company as well as the driver and owner to pay the same severally and jointly. The insurance company filed these appeals against the award. The claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation amount.

(3.) Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000. Learned Tribunal committed error in directing the insurance company to pay the entire amount of compensation. On the other hand, Mr. O.K. Neema, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and it was liable to pay entire amount of compensation. He further prayed for enhancement of compensation amount also.