RAM KHORANA Vs. RIAZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid appeals and cross-objections are that the respondents Mst. Shamina, Raiz Ahmed and Fayaz Ahmed had filed a claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation consequent upon the death of one Ghulam Nabi Zagu, husband of respon-dent Mst. Shamina and father of respondents Riaz Ahmed and Fayaz Ahmed, Ghulam Nabi Zagu had died on 29-6-1983 of the alleged age of 31 years, while he was travelling in Bus No. JKY/1201 which collided with truck No. DHL-2797 on the same day, i.e. 29-6-1983, and as a result of this collision the bus rolled down about 400 ft. deep into a garge leading to and resulting in the instanta-neous death of the said Ghulam Nabi Zagu. Allegations of rashness and negligence were attributed against the driver of the truck No. DHL-2797, respondent Kuldeep Singh, and accordingly the aforesaid claim petition was filed against this driver, the owner of the truck respondent Shri Ram Khorana and the insurer Oriental Insurance Company. Since the prayer for the grant of compensation was contested by the respondents above named, the Tribunal framed the following three issues for adjudication :-

(2.) None of the Appellants in both the appeals has challenged, in the memos of appeal or during the course of arguments in the court, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 concerning the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident resulting in the death of Ghulam Nabi Zagu deceased. Both the appellants have, however, challange the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2, the appellant Shri Ram Khorana in CIMA 70/89 assailing the finding on the ground that the amount of compensation was excessive and that in any event the offending vehicle having been in-sured and the extent of insurer's liability being unlimited, the entire compensation amount ought to have been directed to be recovered from the insurer; and the appellant Oriental Insurance Company in CIMA No. 73//89 challenged the findings on the limited ques-tion of the extent of compensation awarded. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company in CIMA No. 73/89, even while averring in the memo of appeal about its liability being limited to Rs. 1,50,000.00 has, clearly and unequivocally, through its counsel Mr. H. L. Chowdhry, conceded in the Court during the course of arguments that, in fact, its liability to indemnify the insured against the award passed against him was unlimited and to that extent has not contested the contention of appellant Shri Ram Khorana in CIMA No. 70/89 that the entire award amount ought to have been directed to be recovered from the insurer, Oriental Insurance Com-pany.

(3.) Because of the admission of Mr. H. L. Chowdhary about the Oriental Insurance Com-pany having unlimited liability arising out of the contract of insurance and consequently the fact that such unlimited liability would absolved the appellant Shri Ram Khorana from the burden of paying any part of the compensation amount as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award, the only issue of controversy raised in both the appeals and the cross-objections is about the extent of the quantification of the amount of compen-sation awarded by the Tribunal and the rate of interest allowed thereupon.