VIMLA SRIVASTAVA Vs. RAJNIDEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger bench:

(2.) SHRI Ram Kishan injured and heirs of deceased Balu Ram filed separate claim petitions. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being heirs of deceased Surendra Sharma filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal vide its award dated January 15, 1977, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,11,200/- as compensation to the claimants and Rs. 500/- as costs. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 10,000/- were required to I* paid by respondent No. 5 M/s. New India Insurance Company Ltd., M.I. Road, Jaipur and rest of the amount was required to be paid by the appellant. Learned Tribunal fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only under Section 95(2)(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Supreme Court in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi had taken the view that the expression "any one accident" in Section 95(2) of the Act is susceptible of the equally reasonable meanings or interpretations, if a collision occurs between a car and truck resulting in injuries to 5 persons, it is as such plausible to say that 5 persons were injured in one accident as it is to say that each of the 5 persons met with an accident. A bye stander-looking at the occurrence objectively will be right in saying that the truck and the car met with an accident or that they were concerned in one accident. On the other hand, a person looking at the occurrence subjectively like the one who is injured in the collision, will say that he met with an accident, and so will each of the 5 persons, who were injured. From their point of view, which is relevant point of view, "any one accident" means "accident to anyone". It was further observed that if the matter is looked from an objective point of view the insurer's liability will be limited to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of injuries caused to all the five persons considered enblock as a single entity since they were injured as a result of one single collision. On the other hand, if the matter is looked at subjectively as it ought to be the insurer's liability will extend to a sum of Rs 20,000/- in respect of the injuries suffered by each of the 5 persons since each met with an accident, though during the course of same transaction. It was thus held that if more than one person is injured during the course of same transaction, each one of the persons has met with an accident.

(3.) PRIOR to an amendment made by the Act 56 of 1969 which came into effect on March 2, 1970, the provisions of Section 95, Sub-sections (1) and (2) read as under: Section 95-(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-