Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piara Singh vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Gera And Ors. on 20 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: II(1986)ACC60, [1987]62COMPCAS567(P&H)
JUDGMENT D.V. Sehgal, J.
1. This is an appeal by the owner of a vehicle against the award dated August 5, 1982, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana.
2. On April 29, 1981, Narshing Lal Gera, deceased, Branch Manager, Central Bank of Indiaoga, along with one Ram Tirath of Moga was travelling from Moga to Ludhiana in Taxi No. PNY-81 belonging to the appellant, which was hired by Ram Tirath and was being driven by Ashok Kumar, driver. As they reached near the bus stand, Sunet, near the Milk Plant, Ludhiana, the taxi hit against a cart coming from the opposite direction. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Due to the accident, Narshing Lal Gera and the driver of the car received multiple injuries. They were removed to the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The driver died about 8/9 hours later while Mr. Narshing Lal Gera died after about 22 hours at 1,40 p.m. on April 30, 1981. The claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who are the widow, daughter, sons and the mother and who were all dependent on Narshing Lal Gera, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. After a full-dress trial, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were all dependent on the deceased; and that Narshing Lal Gera died due to rash and negligent driving of the taxi of which the appellant was the owner.
3. Taking into account the income of the deceased, dependency of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on him and the age of the deceased, the loss to them was assessed at Rs. 3,62,496. As regards the liability, the Tribunal decided that since the driver of the taxi had already died, the appellant as its owner was liable to pay the whole amount. With regard to the liability of the insurance company, respondent No. 6, it concluded that the same was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000 as per the provisions of the insurance policy.
4. The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability of respondent No. 6 was unlimited and as such it should have been made to pay the entire amount of damages, viz., Rs. 3,62,496, The learned counsel submitted that in the written statement, respondent No. 6 has nowhere averred that its liability was limited and in the absence of such an averment, respondent No. 6 was liable for the payment of the whole amount of damages. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on Bomanji Rustomji Ginwala v. Ibrahim Vali Master [1982] ACJ 380 (Guj). This contention is, however without substance. A reference to the written statement of respondent No. 6 makes it clear that in para 12 thereof it was specifically pleaded that its maximum liability per passenger was Rs. 10,000.
5. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the insurance policy, exhibit R.W. 1/1, in the column "Limits of liability ", there is no limit prescribed as regards the liability in case of death of a passenger. This is again not correct. In the column " Limits of liability " against the words " Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-I(i), it is mentioned " Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". It makes the reference to the provisions of section 95 of the said Act necessary. Sub-section (2)(b)(ii)(1) and (4) of section 95 provide that a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to a limit of Rs. 50,000 in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than 30 passengers and subject to the limit aforesaid, Rs. 10,000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab. In view of the stipulation in the policy and the aforesaid provision of law, the support which the learned counsel for the appellant wants to derive from Shyam Lal v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1979] ACJ 208 (MP), is not available to him. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this court in Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. v.Smt. Amra Wati [1966] PLR 538; [1966] ACJ 13 (Punj), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v.
Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 73 PLR 722; AIR 1971 SC 1624. He has further relied on Prem Devi v. Harbhajan Singh, [1984] 86 PLR 459 ; [1984] ACJ 707 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Samundri Roadways Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 86 PLR 689 ; [1985] ACJ 239 to canvass that the stipulation for the limited liability in case of death of a passenger is in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to endorsement No. 13 forming part of the copy of the policy, exhibit RW 1/1, which is at page 46 of the record of the Tribunal, and contends that all the columns in this endorsement are left blank and as such the liability of respondent No. 6 is unlimited. I am afraid, this contention is of no help to him, firstly, for the reason that the original policy of insurance, which is supposed to be in the possession of the appellant himself, has not been produced on the record and has in fact been withheld for reasons best known to him, and, secondly, a perusal of endorsement No. 13 shows that it is meant to override the stipulation contained in Section II-1(c) of the policy which absolves the insurance company from the liability in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, any person other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment being carried in or upon or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises. Thus, no benefit out of this clause can be taken by the appellant. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.