A C KATYAL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that liability of the insurer is limited to the compensation payable under Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (W. C. Act for short) and the balance amount of compensation is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case necessary for determination of the question may be stated thus: The appellant's vehicle (truck) bearing registration number OSS 5202 which was insured with the Respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company Limited was involved in an accident on 25-12-84. In the said accident, one collie of the truck died and four coolies sustained injuries, one of the injured suffered permanent disablement. On the applications filed by the injured persons and heirs/dependants of the deceased, Misc. (A) Case Nos. 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 of 1985 were registered before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (Northern Division), Sambalpur. The appellant as owner of the vehicle and Respondent No. 1 as its insurer were cited as opposite parties in all the cases. By a common judgment passed on 18-3-1986 the Tribunal-disposed of all the cases awarding compensation in favour of the claimants/petitioners. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal, the claimants/petitioners filed five appeals i.e. Misc. Appeals Nos. 140/86 to 144/86, in this Court. The said appeals were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 30-4-91 in which the learned single Judge held inter alia that each of the injured claimants was entitled to Rs. 2500/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of application i.e. 22-2- 1985 till payment. Regarding the claim of Buda Munda (appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 142/86) who suffered permanent disablement, he maintained the quantification of compensation made by the tribunal (Rs. 27,000/-) but held that insurer would be liable to pay Rs. 24,000/- in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the W. C. Act and the rest of the amount shall be payable by the owner. Similarly in Misc. Appeal No. 144/86 filed by Mst. Thumri Munda heir/dependant of the deceased Bhado Munda, the liability of the insurer was restricted to Rs. 20,000/- and the balance compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal was directed to be paid by the owner. The appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge in the aforementioned two cases in these Letters Patent Appeals.

(3.) The contention of the appellant shortly stated is that the findings of the learned single Judge restricting the liability of insurer is erroneous in asmuchas the Insurance Company had neither produced the insurance policy nor any other materials to show that its liability was restricted to the compensation payable under W.C. Act. It is the further contention of the appellant that copy of the insurance policy produced by him which was marked as Ext. A shows that liability of insurer is not restricted to the extent as noted above.