NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Vs. INDARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company, against the Award dated 19.9.90, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 169/88. The accident occurred on 2nd October, 1986. The deceased Pappu alias Ramcharan met with an accident while he was travelling in a Tempo No. MBG 0003, insured with the appellant, drivern by respondent No. 5, Pappu s/o Radheshyam and owned by respondent No. 6, Rameshwar Dayal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the claimants being LRs of Pappu @ Ramcharan. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, respondent No. 5, hence, awarded a sum of Rs. 69,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and fixed the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.

(2.) MR . B.N. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, fairly conceded that so far as the finding of the learned Tribunal, regarding rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is concerned, the same is well merited and even otherwise being Insurance Company, the said finding cannot be challenged. The main contention of the learned Counsel is regarding limits of the responsibility of the Insurance Company under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel further relied on 1988 ACJ 270 National Insurance Company v. Jugalkishore and Ors.; Economic Roadways Corporation and Anr. v. R.S. Kuril and Ors.; 1987 ACJ 872 M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty and Ors. and 1989 ACJ 1163 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Veenna Pruthi and Ors. All these cases were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 65/91, decided on 19.4.94, wherein the D.B. has held that these 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 that case i.e., M.A. No. 65/91.