RAMBILASH GUPTA Vs. ARUNBALA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2000, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishanganj in Claim Case No. 10 of 1989. The owner of the vehicle in question is the appellant here.

(2.) Appellants lawyer has challenged the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The claimant-respondents lawyer submitted that appellant appeared in the court below, but did not file any W.S. either denying the alleged occurrence or challenging the case on any other ground. So he would be estopped from challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. It was further submitted by the claimant-respondent that the insurance policy was neither produced by the insurance company nor by the appellant. Hence, the insurance company could not set up the case that its liability is limited.

(3.) Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured and so it was further submitted by the appellants lawyer that liability for paying the entire compensation money should have been fixed on the insurance company. However under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver, the owner and the insurance company, all are severally and jointly liable. In the instant case, the insurance company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 which was its limited liability in view of section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Of course, the insurance policy was not produced by any of the parties. So the plea of the insurance company for limited liability was not available to it. But in spite of that, when the court thought it fit to place limited liability upon the insurance company, I do not think it committed any illegality by directing the owner of the vehicle to pay the remaining amount of compensation. I have already observed above that under section 168 of the Act, the owner is not free from its liability to pay the compensation amount. So there is no illegality in the impugned judgment to this extent.