DEBRAJ OJAH Vs. MAHENDRA NATH BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment we propose to dispose of the two appeals as they stem from a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A C. Case No. 27(K)/72 and MAC. Case No. 104(K)/72 and Ors. Both the appeals contain similar facts involving similar questions of law. Debraj Ojah is the appellant in both the cases though the respondents are different. The appellant is the owner of ill-fated bus No. ASK 7486 which was involved in an accident on 8-2-70 at Sa-raighat Bridge, Gauhati. On the fateful day the bus loaded with passengers to its capacity proceeded from Rangiya towards Gaubati and while taking a turning on the approach of the northern side of the Saraighat Bridge, it dashed against the approach iron railing of the bride and fell down on the railway line below and then on the river side ground as a result of which the inmates of the bus received serious injuries. The respondent of M.A.F. No. 54/77 Shri Ganeshlal Das and the respondent of M.A.F. No. 52/77 Shri Mahendra Nath Barman who were also the inmates of the bus also received serious injuries. Therefore, they filed independent claim petitions in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for their injuries. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record and also basing the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded compensation to the respondent of M.A.F. No. 54/77 to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- and the respondent of M.A F. No. 52/77 to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. The learned Tribunal directed that the respondent Insurance company would pay only Rs. 2,000/- in each case to cover up their liabilities and the remaining portion of the award would be shared by the appellant of both the appeals. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest and cost of the litigation as directed in the award. Being aggrieved by the apportionment of the award amount the appellant has preferred these two appeals which are now the subject-matter for our consideration.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal respondent of M.A.F. 52/77 Mahendra Nath Barman having died his legal heirs and representatives have been brought on record as respondents.

(3.) THIS case would to governed by the old provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the accident took place on 8-2-70 prior to the 1969 amendment which came into force with effect from 2-3-70. However, to appreciate the submissions of Mr. Talukdar we may quote the provisions of Section 95(2) of the 1939 Act herein below: 95(2). Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely: