NIRBHAI ROADWAYS PVT LTD Vs. GURVINDER SINGH BINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claimants Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the MACT') arising out of MACT No. 32/8 of 1987, dated August 1,1988. The only ground raised by the Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing is that the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case was unlimited in terms of the policy issued by the Insurance Company by charging extra premium. However, still the Tribunal while recording finding on issue No.2 determined the liability of the Insurance Company to be limited to Rs. 3,00, 000 and out of the total amount of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded as compensation, the appellant was made liable to pay the balance thereof. The facts in the case are not to be gone into in much detail as neither the accident is in dispute nor the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The only issue which requires considered is as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case was limited to Rs. 3,00, 000 as directed by the M.A.C.T. Counsel for both the parties have referred to and relied upon the policy of Insurance, which on record as Exhibit R-l. There is a handwritten copy of the policy besides a duplicate typed copy, which is on record. Whereas a perusal of the handwritten copy shows that third party premium of Rs. 240 was charged and additional third party premium of Rs. 75 was changed from the appellant for the insurance of he vehicle in question. There is no description given for charging of Rs. 75 additionally for third party. In the duplicate typed copy, the Insurance Company has shown Rs. 240 as premium for liability to public risk and Rs. 75 as premium for coverage of risk of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section II Clause 1 (ii). The relevant clause of the policy is extracted below:

(2.) The duplicate typed copy of the Insurance Company is not in terms of the handwritten copy, which is a photocopy of the original issued at he time of issue of policy. Accordingly, the claim of insurance company that the sum of Rs. 75 additionally charged was for coverage of risk on account of damage to the property of third party, is not borne out from the record.

(3.) Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this plea of the Insurance Company and reverse the findings of he Tribunal on this issue while holding that Insurance Company having charged extra premium for coverage of unlimited third party risk is liable to bear the entire compensation payable to the claimants.