VIJENDER BHAGOTRA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT has preferred this appeal challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge that the liability of the insurance company was limited and also the order reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal after entertaining the cross objection preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) CLAIMANT sustained injuries in a road accident occurred on March 9, 1988 when a Taxi Car hit a Scooter driven by him. On facts, it was found that the Taxi driver was rash and negligent. Taxi was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. As a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered multiple fractures on his left leg. Rs. 11.00 lacs were claimed as compensation. Claim petition was decided on April 26, 1990 awarding an amount of Rs. 2.27 lacs and the insurance company was held liable to pay Rs. 50,000 with interest. Balance award amount was directed to be paid by the owner of the Taxi, i.e., the offending vehicle. Award was, however, set aside at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal passed the, fresh award on May 15, 1994 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2.27 lacs to Rs. 3,30,000/ -. Tribunal also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited.

(3.) INSURANCE company aggrieved by that part of the award holding the liability of the insurance company as unlimited, preferred CIMA no. 107 of 1994 before the learned Single Judge. Cross objection was preferred by the owner challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The finding regarding negligence was also questioned. It was contended before the Learned Single Judge that copy of the insurance policy was already filed before the Tribunal and it was proved by examining a competent officer which would indicate that the liability of the insurance company was limited. On the other hand, contention was raised by the claimant that since Unoriginal of the policy was not produced and hence the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. Contention was also raised that the owner of the vehicle was not justified in filing cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation in the appeal preferred by the insurance company and that no cross objection would lie in the eye of law.