ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. SHANTA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Udaipur dated June 23,1987 by which the claimant-respondents have been awarded Rs. 43,000/- as compensation with costs and interest. The facts of the case-giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON October 24, 1984, Chhatar Singh, husband of the claimant No. 1 Mst Shanta Kanwar and son of the claimants No. 2 and 3 Kesar Singh and Mst Sobhag Kanwar was travelling in Bus No. RSY 9651 owned by respondent No. 5 Hangami Lal. It was being driven by its driven respondent No. 4 Bhanwar Singh rashly and negligently. As a result thereof, it over turned. The passengers Chhatar Singh and Shanti Das received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimant-respondents filed a claim petition for Rs. 1, 90,000/- against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the appellant. They seriously contested the claim petition. The insurance company also averred that it is liable to the extent of Rs. 15, 000/- only as the deceased Chhatar Singh was a passenger in the said bus. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned member of the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash had negligent driving on the part of the bus driver Bhanwar Singh, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 43,000/ as compensation from all the three respondents and accordingly gave the award under challenge.

(3.) IN has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that admittedly the deceased Chatter Singh was a passenger in the bus, its liability was to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as provided in Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the learned Counsel Tribunal seriously erred to hold that the appellant is also liable to make payment of the entire amount of award. He further contended that no additional premium was charged for the passengers, the appellant never agreed for wider coverage than the minimum statutory liability and by leaving column 13-A blank the liability of the appellant did not extend beyond the statutory limit.