UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NOLAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22. 8. 1986 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 105 of 1982.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein had filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the court of M. A. C. T. , Balaghat claiming a sum of Rs. 1,10,800/- on account of the death of the husband Muniram, of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in an accident on 7. 3. 1979 out of the use of the motor vehicle, viz. , a bus bearing registration No. MPJ 8626 of the ownership of respondent No. 5, Shastri Brothers driven by Sharda Prasad, the respondent No. 6. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which was recoverable jointly and severally from the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the appellant insurance company. Against the said award dated 12. 12. 1981 of M. A. C. T. Balaghat, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 2 of 1980 the appellant insurance company had preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 105 of 1982) while the owner of the bus Shastri Brothers had filed M. A. No. 116 of 1982. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned single Judge disposed of the said two appeals and the cross objection by common order dated 22. 8. 1986 and while dismissing the appeals, allowed the cross-objection and enhanced the compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- to be recoverable jointly and severally from the insurance company, owner and the driver. In the said order, the learned single Judge negatived the contention of the insurance company that the liability of the company was limited to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in relation to individual passenger in respect of the class of vehicle involved in the accident. The learned single Judge also held that provisions of Section 95 (2) of the Act are subject to the terms of the policy. Hence, this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.