NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, being heard by single Bench, was heard by us, analogously with Division Bench appeal, M. A. Nos. Hand 18 of 1991.

(2.) THE only question canvassed in this appeal was that in the award of Rs. 33,500 granted as compensation by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 52 of 1986 for the death of a passenger named Rakesh in bus No. CPH 8232 which met with an accident, the liability of the appellant insurance company was not joint and several to the extent of full amount of the award along with owner and driver of the bus, but was limited to the payment of Rs. 15,000/-, being the extent of statutory liability required to be covered under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was then in force. Mr. B. N. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the insurance company, relied on the decisions in Economic Roadways Corporation v. K. S. Murali AIR 1991 AP 103; M. K. Kunhi-mohammed v. PA. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC) and Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Veena Pruthi 1989 ACJ 1163 (Delhi ). Suffice to say that these are decisions which turned on the interpretation of the terms of insurance policies involved in those cases. They are not authority for the interpretation of the terms of the insurance policy which was taken out in the present case.

(3.) A look at the policy in the present case (copy Exh. D-l-C) would show that the insurance company, inter alia, undertook to indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's costs and expenses, which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle to the extent of 'such sum as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939', (see Section II-1 (i) and last but one column of the Schedule stating the limits of liability contained in the policy ). The expression 'such sum as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939' in the policy cannot be read as requirements of Section 95 only but that expression would cover the entire liability of the owner, when incurred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Had there been an intention to limit the liability of the insurance company to limits given in Section 95, there was nothing to prevent the use of the words 'section 95' or to mention the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger as liability, in the above term. The award for the entire sum of compensation having been given under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the above expression would mean that the insurance company agreed to indemnify for the entire sum, as the liability therefor was incurred by the owner under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanak Chand Ben 1989 ACJ 169 (MP), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Kumar Tamarakar 1990 ACJ 958 (MP) and Anupama v. Laxmanrao 1988 ACJ 996 (MP), are in point.