Patna High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chhunnu Ram And Anr. on 15 July, 1983
Equivalent citations: AIR1984PAT1, [1986]59COMPCAS315(PATNA), AIR 1984 PATNA 1, (1983) TAC 605, 1983 BLT (REP) 222, 1983 BBCJ 596, (1983) ACJ 577, (1984) 1 ACC 76
JUDGMENT H.L. Agrawal, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. The Insurance Company disputes the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant for the accident which took place in the morning of 7-6-1974 near Sessai in the district of Ranchi when a passenger bus bearing registration No. BRV 2961 met with an accident due to its front wheel brusting and loss of control over the vehicle resulting in the fall of the bus into a roadside ditch causing death and injury to several passengers.
2. The bus was insured with the Hindustan General Insurance Society, Limited which has been merged in the appellant-company, namely, National Insurance Company. Limited. The carrying capacity of this bus was 49 passengers including the driver. Chhunnu Ram, respondent No. 1 aged about 48 years who was also travelling in the same bus, sustained serious injuries in his left hand and leg resulting in amputation of his leg. He made a claim of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of his earning of Rs. 400/- per month and the learned Judicial Commissioner, on the basis of monthly saving of Rs. 150/- for his family members and taking 12 years as his future earning capacity, awarded the entire claim of Rs. 20,000/- against the Insurance Company with interest @ Rs. 6% per annum.
3. The only point that has been raised before us by Mr. B. K. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that in view of the limitation contained in Section 95 (2) Clause (b) (i) (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (briefly the M. V. Act) the liability of the Insurance Company could not expend beyond rupees five thousand in terms of the policy of the Insurance Company (Ext. 1).
4. Section 95 of the M. V. Act deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. I would do better to extract Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95:
"(b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward "or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment,--
(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;
(ii) in respect of passengers,--
(1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers; (2) a limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers:
(3) a limit of one Lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers: and (4) subject to the limits aforesaid ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case;"
5. Learned counsel further contended that Sub-clause (4) of Clause (b) provides the limit of five thousand rupees for an individual passenger: in case he was travelling in any kind of vehicle other than a motor cab irrespective of the nature of injury sustained by him.
6. It is no doubt, true that the provisions of Sub-section (2) are enacted to safeguard the interest of the insurer who is at liberty to raise any one of the objections permissible to him under this provision and avoid his liability, prior to the 1969 amendment, the limits per individual passenger were rupees two thousand if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers (total liability of Rs. 20,0001 and rupees four thousand if the vehicle was registered to carry not more than six passengers.
7. The expression 'any liability' incurred in respect of 'any one accident' were considered by the various High Courts and it was held to prescribe limits in respect of completely insurable risks including third party's risk and fix a limit in relation to the vehicles and make distinction between goods vehicles and the vehicles in which passengers are carried. In respect of vehicles carrying passengers, several distinctions have been made on their different capacity; their classification being on a carrying capacity of (a) not more than thirty passengers (b) more than thirty passengers but not more than sixty passengers; and (c) more than sixty passengers, prior to the 1969 amendment, the distinction was only between the vehicles registered to carry not more than six passengers and those carrying more than six passengers including the driver. But after the 1969 amendment, the liability of the vehicles carrying passengers, has been extended,
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi (AIR 1981 SC 2059) which overruled all the decisions of the High Courts taking the view in favour of the Insurance Companies. Although this case was not a case in regard to a bus carrying passengers but a case in relation to a goods truck and thus fell under Clause (a) of Sub-section (21 of Section 95, the learned Chief Justice took pains to consider in great detail the scope of the expression 'any one accident' occurring in Sub-section (2) itself and held that the expression 'accident' was used for the expression 'any one accident' from the point of view of the various claimants, each of whom was entitled to make a separate claim for the accident suffered by him and not from the point of view of the insurer and, therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learn ed counsel for the appellant not to follow the ratio of this case because that was not a case of a claim by a passenger. The expression used in Sub-section (2) controls the claims arising under Clause (a) as well as Clause (b), the decision of the Supreme Court would have a binding effect on the cases falling under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) as well. The learned Chief Justice has also taken into account the increasing hazards of indiscipline and fast moving traffics causing injuries and deaths in the road and the train accidents, leaving their dependants to wage a long and unequal battle against the Insurance Companies.
9. Earlier, in the case of Sheikupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1971 SC 1624) which was a case of a passenger bus in which death of two passengers had taken place at the spot and others had sustained minor injuries, a case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was held with reference to Section 95 (2) (b) that in absence of any contract to the contrary, the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured in the case of a vehicle allowed to carry more than six passengers, extended only up to Rs. 2,000 in respect of each passenger, though the total liability may go up to Rs. 20,000/-was distinguished in AIR 1981 SC 2059 on the ground that argument regarding the construction of the words "any one accident" was neither made nor considered by the court in that case.
10. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that if the meaning of the expression in respect of 'any one accident' as given by the Supreme Court in the 1981 case is to be accepted even in relation to the claims relating to passenger buses then it would do violence to the express intention of the legislature in Sub-clause (4) and make the 1969 amendment meaningless as then there did not appear to be any sense for the legislature to prescribe different limitations for the different capacities of the passenger buses inasmuch as the outer limits of Rs. 50,000/-, 75,000/- and 1,00,000/- was made only keeping in view the possibility of the larger number of passengers being involved in the accident in bigger buses so that the limit of admissible claim fixed for each individual passenger in such cases may not prove too small and inadequate on account of apportionment in view of the outer limits of the liability fixed for the insurer and the number of passengers being carried in any such vehicle. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court the court may perhaps in a given case award the maximum compensation even to only one passenger who might be a victim of the accident in the type of the bus he was travelling against the Insurance Company.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is attractive and finds support from all the decided cases of the various High Courts; some of which have been noticed by the Supreme Court and overruled in its 1981 decision referred to above as well as by the decision of the Supreme Court itself in AIR 1971 SC 1624 but, in view of the binding effect of this authority which has noticed and distinguished the earlier case, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and it must be held that the provisions contained in Sub-clause (4) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 must give way to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the above case. The award of Rs. 20,000/-given by the learned Judicial Commissioner therefore being within the limit of the carrying capacity of the bus in question must be held to be proper and justified.
12. In view of my above discussions, this appeal must fail and it is hereby dismissed. But, in the circumstance of the case I will make no order as to costs.
Madan Mohan Prasad, J. I agree.