TARABAI Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 25 years old girl who was injured in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 10. 8. 1988 being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal has filed this appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the insurer.

(2.) THE main question that arises for consideration relates to the quantification of compensation. The claimant sustained fracture of the left hand, involving fracture of radius and ulna leading to 15 per cent disability. Her arm was subjected to plating and skin-grafting. She had to undergo five surgical operations in the hospital. She claimed compensation of Rs. 1,14,000/ -. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- as general damages and Rs. 11,958/- towards medical expenses. Interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum was also allowed. The general damages were awarded only after considering the aspects of permanent disfigurement, permanent discomfort and disability, the reduced efficiency in working (she is a labourer) and adverse impact on enjoyment of life and the like. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the compensation towards general damages awarded is too low. We would increase it so that the total amount of award is increased to Rs. 40,000/ -.

(3.) THE more important question arising for consideration is the extent of liability of insurer. The insurer in its written statement denied that the vehicle had coverage of policy. At a later stage, the claimant caused production of the policy and then the insurer also produced a certificate of policy. Relying on the averments in the policy, the Tribunal held that the insurer's liability is restricted to Rs. 15,000/- which is the limit of statutory liability with regard to a passenger considering the fact that the accident took place when the claimant was travelling in a bus. We have been taken through the documents of insurance. It nowhere clearly indicates that the liability of the insurer is restricted to either Rs. 15,000/- per passenger or that it is only an Act policy. No evidence was adduced by the insurer to show that the premium was paid only for the Act coverage. Policy appears to be a comprehensive policy. The policy contains a certificate to the effect that the policy has been issued in accordance with Chapters VII-A and VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This has no significance inasmuch as every type of policy which includes the Act liability would also be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, The insurer would have been well advised to adduce some evidence to indicate on what basis the premium was paid. The insurer did not care to do so There is no presumption that every policy is an Act policy. Every policy has to be interpreted on its own terms and the liability of the insurer has to be fixed in accordance with those terms. In the absence of any presumption that the policy is an Act policy, it is for the insurer to show that its liability is restricted. The insurer failed to establish that premium was paid only for Act liability. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold the insurer liable for the entire compensation awarded.