SURINDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. SUKH DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in appeal here is with regard to the extent of the liability of the insurance company. The point in issue being--whether in a claim for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), arising out of the death of a workman, the liability of the insurance company is limited to the amount payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that on January 27, 1980, at about 5 a. m. the truck HRC 5443, suddenly went off the road and hit a tree. This happened near village Bhangola in District Faridabad. Maim Singh, who was employed as a labourer on this truck, sustained serious injuries in this accident, as a result of which he later died. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck-driver. A sum of Rs. 40,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the mother, widow and minor son of Maim Singh, deceased. The liability of the insurance company was fixed at Rs. 18,000, this being the amount payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and for the balance the truck-owner and driver were held to be jointly and severally liable.

(3.) THERE is a conflict of judicial opinion on whether the liability of the insurance company is so limited. This arises mainly from the interpretation of proviso (i) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act, which reads as under: