NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SHIV KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. at the admission stage itself.

(2.) THE National Insurance Company Ltd. is the appellant in this appeal which arises out of judgment and award dated 9.5.95 and 20.5.95 respectively passed by the Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangunj, by which the Tribunal had directed the appellant to pay 40% of the total amount of compensation and 60% by the owner of the bus in question. The total compensation ¢has been awarded as Rs.1,72,160/ - out of which a sum of Rs.15,000/ - has already been paid by the appellant -Insurance Company to the claimant.

(3.) MR . Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay more than Rs.15,000/ - in terms of the insurance policy. In this case it is admitted position that a sum of Rs.12/ - was being paid by way of premium for one passenger which comes to Rs.408/ - for 34 passengers. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Claims Tribunal is not right in directing the appellant to pay compensation amount in the ratio of 40% of the total amount of Rs.1,72,160/ -. The Court without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.15,000/ - is by way of interim compensation payable by the Insurance Company to the applicant, and thus the Tribunal has committed an error of law. In support of his contention the learned counsel relying upon the terms of the insurance policy as well as Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay more than Rs.15,000/ - by way of compensation. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shanti Bai (Smt.) and others reported in 1995(2) S.C.C. 539. Paragraph -9 of the said judgment reads as follows: "In the present case, the premium which has been paid is Rs.12/ - per passenger and is dearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant -company and respondent no. 4 covered unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the .absence of such an expressed agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. As pointed out by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto the estimated value of the vehicle. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to special risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which is absent in the present case."