NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY Vs. DANAMATI MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Aluminium Company ('NALCO' for short), the owner of the offending bus, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia challenging the judgment and award dated 21 st May, 1996 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (S.D.), Berhampur in M.J.C. No. 139 of 1989.

(2.) THE dispute has a chequered career, in as much as this is the second Miscellaneous Appeal filed before this Court. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication are stated hereinbelow : Admittedly the accident took place on 8th June, 1989 causing death of one Bolu Mali who was working as a mason at Damanjodi, NALCO Township. The deceased was hit by the offending vehicle bearing No. ORK 8619 belonging to NALCO and succumbed to the injuries. The widow and minor son of the deceased filed application under Section 110 -A the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Two Lakhs) as compensation. The Tribunal by a well -discussed judgment dated 2nd June, 1992 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000.00 as compensation against the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the said award, the United Insurance Company Limited preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 359 of 1992 in this Court on the sole ground that in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which Act was in vogue at the relevant time, the limited liability of the Insurance Company, in consonance with Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was only Rs. 50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand) towards third -party risk. This Court remanded the case to the Tribunal with the following direction . - 'The Tribunal is directed to re -hear the question regarding the liability of the Insurance Co. and that of the owner giving them (owner and Insurance Co.) opportunity to adduce evidence on the said question.'

(3.) AFTER remand, the matter was once again heard by the learned Tribunal in extenso. The NALCO examined one witness and the Insurance Company examined two witnesses. The sole contention of the NALCO was that proviso (ii) to Section 95(1) is not applicable and the case is covered under Section 95(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.