Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. ... vs S. Vijayalakshmi And Ors. on 12 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT351
JUDGMENT Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited-second respondent in O.P.No. 164 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, preferred this appeal against the order passed on 23-4-1992.
2. S. Somasekhar died on 25-9-1989 while travelling as passenger in the bus TNM-4959 in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus by its driver. His mother, wife and children preferred the above claim for a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus involved in the accident. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal, after due enquiry, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,39,000/- against both the owner and insurer. The insurer aggrieved by the above award preferred this appeal.
3. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the liability of the insurer-appellant is to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only for each passenger travelling in the bus and the award passed contrary to the insurance policy is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
4. It is seen from the claim petition that the claimants have given only the name of the owner of vehicle and the insurance company with which it was insured. They have not furnished policy particulars in the claim petition. In view of this fact, the insurer filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and put the claimants to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them and further stated that if necessary particulars are furnished, suitable statement would be filed in due course of time. It is seen from the record that the claimants have not furnished any further particulars with respect to insurance policy. However, it is seen from the counter of the owner that he gave the particulars of insurance policy and pleaded that the insurer is bound to indemnify the liability of the owner as per the said policy.
5. Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked by consent of the parties before the Tribunal. It is clear from Ex.B-1 that the liability of the insurer is to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for each passenger of the bus. In view of the above facts, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable beyond the terms of Ex.B-1 policy as the insurer failed to plead and prove that the liability is to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for each passenger is erroneous. From the counter of the insurer and the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the insurer is liable beyond the terms of Ex.B-1 policy. In the absence of details, there was no other go for the insurer except to plead that the claimants were put to strict proof of their pleas. In view of the specific plea of the owner that the insurance company is bound to indemnify his liability to the extent of Ex.B-1 policy taken by him, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for claimants that the insurer is liable to pay whole of the amount.
6. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The liability of the appellant i.e., insurer is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- only. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.