HANS RAJ Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The meaningful issue which calls for determination has been formulated in the following terms, in the lucid order of reference : "Do the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act limit the liability of the insurer qua the insured as also the third party to the one that by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 95 it is required to cover, even though by charging extra premium the insurer has undertaken a liability greater than the one the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 95 requires it to cover."

(2.) Mulkh Raj is the registered owner of truck No. UTJ-3338. On June 8, 1979 at 3-30 P. M. it was involved in a collision with two bullock-carts of the claimant- respondents. As a result thereof all the four bullocks involved died and the two carts were damaged whilst injuries were suffered by both the drivers of the carts. Separate claims with regard to the injuries and loss of property were preferred by the two drivers. Besides the appellant No. 1--driver of the truck- its insurer Messrs : New India Assurance Company Limited were also impleaded as respondents. The Tribunal decided in favour of the claimants and assessed the loss with regard to the damage of their property at Rs. 6,500/- and compensation for personal injuries at Rs. 5000-. Thus he awarded Rs. 7,000/ to each one of the claimants. However, as regards the liability of the Insurance Company, it held as follows :--

(3.) Before us, learned counsel for the appellant placed firm reliance on the language of the statute itself. Adverting first to S. 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter called 'The Act'), he contended that this in itself envisages the liability of the insurer to pay to the claimants any sum not exceeding the sum assured and payable under the Insurance Policy. Consequently, it was a forcefully submitted that the liability of the insurer is to the extent of the sum assured and payable under the policy of insurance and not subject to any limitation spelt out in Section 95(2) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on Section 110-B of the Act which provides the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer as well. Counsel submitted that the insurer as well. Counsel submitted that reading the aforesaid two provisions together it was inevitable that the insurers would be liable up to the limit of the sum assured and the Tribunal was enjoined to direct such payment by the insurer.