RAM LAL Vs. HASTI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two appeals the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 103 of 1989 has been challenged. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,000 to the claimants in the said claim. By filing S.B.C.M.A. No. 398 of 1996, the owner of the vehicle challenged the award because the Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability of reimbursement of the claim amount beyond the statutory limit by holding that United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be liable to pay only Rs. 15,000 and not entire amount. In Appeal No. 467 of 1995 the claimants challenged the award as the Tribunal has not awarded the entire claim as claimed by claimants and also challenged the finding of the Tribunal fixing limited liability of the said insurance company.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 12.5.1989, the deceased Kamlesh Kumar was going from village Rani to Gundoj in jeep No.RRT 6945. Devendra Kumar was the driver of the vehicle and because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred and in that accident the said Kamlesh Kumar died. Ram Lal, appellant in S.B.C.M.A. No. 398 of 1996, was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The jeep was insured with the respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Deceased was of the age of 27 years only and he was doing the business of goldsmith at Bombay. He was also an income tax assessee and was unmarried. His parents, brother and sister submitted the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,72,000. The claimants submitted in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.2,200 per month out of which he used to deposit Rs.1,000 in his bank account and he was sending Rs.1,000 or even Rs.1,200 to the claimants because the deceased used to incur expenditure of Rs. 200 only for himself as he was residing at Bombay with his relative. The claimants, submitted that because of the death of Kamlesh Kumar, they suffered loss of income of Rs.1,200 per month. The claimants further claimed certain compensations, which are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals.

(3.) So far as the negligence in driving of vehicle by the driver Devendra Kumar is concerned, it is not seriously in dispute in these appeals. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle is that the respondent insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. According to the counsel for the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company took additional premium and, therefore, the entire risk of the passengers travelling in the taxi is covered under the insurance policy issued by the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount and liability is not limited as provided under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that even if it is held that the liability of the insurance company is limited even then, in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this court, the insurance company is liable to pay the full compensation to the claimants. The insurance company may be permitted to recover such amount from the owner of the vehicle for which the insurance company was not liable as per law. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants-claimants are seriously contested by both the learned counsel for the insurance company.