NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BATA MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. raises an interesting question of law with regard to interpretation of Sub -section (2)(a) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to appreciate the said point, it is necessary to state some brief facts. A goods vehicle bearing registration number OSC 8692 was carrying certain employees who were engaged in loading and unloading of boulders. On 26.1.1980 at 8.00 a.m. while the vehicle was moving with the employees on it, on Darpani -Kolasing road, due to rash and negligent driving, the vehicle capsized and the employees who were on the vehicle fell down and the boulders in the truck also fell upon them. On account of the said accident, the employees on the vehicle got injured and they filed petitions for compensation before the Tribunal under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials before him having awarded compensation in respect of four of the employees and having further directed that in respect of those four employees it is the insurance company which would be liable to reimburse the amount and in respect of other claimants the direction being that the owner would be liable to pay, the insurance company has assailed that order in respect of one claimant only. It is admitted that on the vehicle, there were only seven coolies excluding the driver and therefore, seven claim applications had been filed. Out of those seven cases, one was dismissed and from out of the rest six cases, the Tribunal directed that compensation in respect of first four cases be paid by the insurance company and in the other two cases, owner of the vehicle was directed to pay.

(2.) MR . Roy, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contends that in view of Sub -section (2)(a) of Section 95, there being a limit in respect of the number of persons who would be on the vehicle so as to make the insurer liable for paying compensation and the moment that limit is exceeded, the insurance company must be absolved from the liability to pay the compensation in question. He further urges that even if it is held that the liability of the insurance company is restricted to the number provided in Sub -section (2)(a), yet there is no basis for indication as to how the Tribunal will pick and choose and in which six cases the Tribunal will issue direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation. According to the Learned Counsel, such conferment of power on the Tribunal is capable of being arbitrarily exercised and therefore, such an interpretation cannot be sustained.

(3.) THUS the sole question for consideration is as to what is the true meaning of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is profitable at this stage to extract Section 95(2)(a) of the Act: