Delhi High Court
Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Veena Pruthi And Ors. on 10 February, 1989
JUDGMENT S.B. Wad, J.
1. I had allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objections on January 24, 1989. The reasons are as follows.
2. This appeal has been filed by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited with which truck No. HRB 4969 which caused the death of Shri Jai Kishan Pruthi in a road accident on April 7, 1975 was insured. Respondent No. 1 was the driver and respondent No. 4 was the owner of the truck. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,34,500 as compensation to the legal heirs with 6 per cent. interest per annum from the date, of the petition till realisation. This award was made by the Tribunal on December 20, 1979. The submission of the appellant is that they are liable to pay only Rs. 50,000 under the contract of insurance/insurance policy between the owner and the insurance company. There is a cross-objection filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 4, claiming that the entire liability was that of the insurance company.
3. It is an admitted fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did not produce the original policy although he was claiming that the entire liability was that of the insurance company. The insurance company produced the office copy of the policy. Usually, in the file pertaining to the insurer, only the last page of the policy is annexed as the rest of the terms are the usual terms. The Tribunal held that the sheet produced by the insurance company without the terms and conditions cannot be accepted in evidence. The approach of the Tribunal was wholly erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have weighed the circumstances and evidence before it. When the owner had not produced the original copy, it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal to hold the insurance company also jointly and severally liable for the entire amount. As stated above, the normal practice of insurance companies is to keep the relevant page or pages on the file of each insurer, showing how much of the premium is paid and risk of what nature is covered. The Tribunal also overlooked the fact that it is supposed, to make a summary enquiry where it cannot insist upon the technical rules of evidence. I have, therefore, no hesitation to accept the office copy of the policy produced by the insurance company.
4. The copy of the policy would show that the basic premium paid by the owner was Rs. 125. According to the tariff (of which a copy was produced and which is taken on record), in case of liability to public risk in regard to vehicles used for carriage of goods for hire or reward as in the case of a truck, the basic premium is Rs. 125. In case of "Act only" liability, the basic premium is Rs. 84. Counsel for the owner submitted that if the basic premium is Rs. 84, the excess amount of Rs. 41 would make it a case of unlimited liability for the insurance company. Having seen various provisions of the tariff, it is clear that the argument is thoroughly misconceived. The insurance company had not claimed or accepted that it was a case of "Act only" liability. It was specifically stated that it was a public risk liability of which the basic premium is Rs. 125. This is shown at page 77 of the Tariff. At page 120A a chart is given, showing the quantum of the liability over and above the ceiling and the corresponding additional premium required to be paid. For example, it is stated that Rs. 39 is an additional premium for unlimited personal liability where the damage to the property is rupees one lakh. The quantum of liability is proportionately increased with a corresponding increase in the premium paid. It is not shown by the owner from the tariff that anything above Rs. 125 was charged in the present case, such as the sums mentioned as additional premium at page 120A of the Tariff. The appeal of the insurance company is, therefore, to be accepted. The cross-appeal of the owner and the driver is rejected. The insurance company shall be liable to pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation and proportionate interest. The insurance company has already paid Rs. 50,000 to the claimants. The owner and the driver are jointly and severally responsible for payment of the balance amount with 9 per cent. simple interest from the. date of application till the date of realisation.
5. The appeal is allowed. The cross-objection is dismissed. No order as to costs.