NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PARSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parsa alias Paras Ram, while driving truck No. HRG 4828 on 16.3.1981, hit Vijay Kumar, a school going child of six years, near Badshahpur town on the main highway. The accident resulted in amputation of left leg of the child above knee. Vijay Kumar claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 by way of compensation in his petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. The Tribunal, vide its award dated 4.11.1982, assessed compensation of Rs. 87,840 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000 with proportionate costs and interest. The remaining amount, naturally, was ordered to be paid by the owner and driver of the offending truck. This led to filing of F.A.O. No. 62 of 1983 by the legal representatives of owner of the truck, in which cross-objections, too, came to be filed by the claimant. F.A.O. No. 130 of 1983 was separately filed by the insurance company. While dealing with issue No. 3 pertaining to liability of compensation or apportionment of the same between the insurance company and owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the learned single Judge held that entire compensation was payable by the insurance company. For holding so, the learned single Judge observed as follows:

(2.) Aggrieved of the entire liability having been fastened upon the insurance company, it has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent with limited challenge, as is clear from the facts detailed above, i.e., only with regard to the extent of liability.

(3.) Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel representing the appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., contends that a copy of Motor Renewal Endorsement, Exh. R-2, was placed on record of the case. The same was exhibited by the lawyer representing the insurance company when he tendered the same in evidence. Its authenticity was not questioned at any stage, while exhibiting the document, i.e., Motor Renewal Endorsement was not even objected when the same was tendered into evidence. A reading of Exh. R-2 would clearly show that the renewal pertains to policy No. 457256104 and its period was from 3.8.80 to 2.8.1981 and has been issued on 2.8.80. A true copy of the original policy bearing No. 457256104 was also placed on record as Exh. R-l, which was from 3.8.1979 to 2.8.1980. The basic premium mentioned both in Exhs. R-l and R-2 is Rs. 1,661. That apart, in para 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, it has specifically been averred that under policy, the total liability of the in surance company arising from single claim or a series of claims under Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen's Compensation Act resulting in one accident is up to Rs. 50,000 and so much so Ram Saran, owner of truck No. HRG 4828, and Parsa alias Paras Ram, driver of the aforesaid truck, themselves admitted in the written statement filed on their behalf that in case compensation is allowed, respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is liable to pay the award up to Rs. 50,000. Once, no objection at all was raised when the Motor Renewal Endorsement, Exh. R-2, was tendered into evidence and particularly when it has been the case of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle themselves that in case compensation is allowed, the insurance company has to pay award up to Rs. 50,000, the insurance company could not at all be saddled with entire liability.