GANESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. BANDO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle, has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 2.7,1996 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Accident claims Tribunal, Gumla (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in M.J.C. No. 10 of 1989 by which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the claimant respondent No. 1 and apportioned the liability between the appellant and respondent No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Limited. By the said judgment and award, the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh) holding that the liability of the respondent Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ (rupees fifty thousand).

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The claimants filed an application under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband Khabail Oraon, who died in a motor vehicle accident. In the said claim case, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 were impleaded as owner and the insurer of the bus bearing registration No. NKI 6366. The case of the claimants is that on the relevant date, the deceased was moving from Ghaghra to Chapka at about 1.00 p.m. when the aforesaid bus which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed causing fatal injury to the deceased. On being noticed by the Tribunal, both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 appeared and filed their respective written statements. The appellant, who is the owner of the bus in, his written statement specifically pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Limited and on payment of additional premium, the said insurance company undertook the cover the unlimited liability for payment of any amount of compensation on account of the death or bodily injury to a third person. It was contended in the written statement that in terms of the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay entire compensation, if awarded by the claims Tribunal. In the written filed by the respondent No. 2, the insurance company, it was admitted that the bus was insured with it on the alleged date of accident, subject to terms, conditions, restrictions and exceptions contained in the insurance policy. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and awarded a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs together with interest @ 12% from the date of award. However, the claims Tribunal held that out of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 50,000/ and the rest amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. According to the learned Counsel, in absence of special contract between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company covering unlimited liability in respect of accident, the owner cannot be exonerated of his liability to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Counsel put reliance on the decision of Kashi Nath Pandey v. Archand Sahay 1998 (1) PUR 279; Puransingh v. Murlilal and Ors. 1997 (Sic) ACC 567 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. N.M. Annakutty 1997 (2) ACC 611.