Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Act did not lay down limits of compensation which could be granted to the victims.

The compensation has to be granted by the Tribunals commensurating with the injuries, income of deceased, dependency and various other factors necessary for determining the compensation. Wherever minimum insurance cover was obtained by the owner in terms of the Act the owner had to pay the balance compensation awarded by the Tribunal himself.

9. The insurance companies are issuing various kinds of policies which included 'Act Only Policy', 'Public Risk Policy' and 'Comprehensive Policy'. The 'Comprehensive Policy' and 'Public Risk Policy' are not the essential requirements of law. The only essential requirement of the Act was 'Act Only Policy' since without obtaining this policy providing minimum cover as required under Section 95, no vehicle could be plied on the road. It was liberty of the owner of the vehicle to obtain an 'Act Only Policy' or to obtain a wider policy. However, an owner could ply vehicle on the road by obtaining an insurance cover giving him minimum indemnity as required under Section 95 of the Act. If the insured/owner obtained a cover wider than the 'Act Only', he obtained so for his own benefit so that his balance risks and other risks were also covered by the insurance company.

Public risk is a wider term and takes into account the entire risk faced by the owner for bringing vehicle on road. If there had been no compulsion under the Act to obtain an insurance policy, the only insurance cover which owner could have obtained from an insurance company for covering public risk would have been this that he would pay Rs.240/- and get the public risk covered. If the Act would have not prescribed any limit, the public risk would naturally have been unlimited. The Act prescribed that every owner of vehicle should get insurance cover covering a minimum amount. Beyond that, the Act did not provide anything. It is under these circumstances that the Tariff Advisory Committee prescribed separate premium for 'Act Only Policy' and separate premium for a 'Public Risk Policy'. I, therefore, consider that the 'Public Risk' premium would cover unlimited amount of risk and would not cover a limited amount of risk.

(ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle.

......................

12. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for respective parties and perused impugned award passed by Claims Tribunal, Mehsana. I have also considered para-15 of impugned award in which question of limited liability is decided relying upon insurance policy Exh.127 and Section 95(2)(b)(i). Against that question which was not considered by Claims Tribunal, Mehsana while referring Section 95(2)(a) that insured has paid additional premium of Rs. 240/- for liability to public risk, it is not a case of insurance company that Exh.127 policy is act policy but it was a public risk policy issued by insurance company. Tariff as referred above suggested Rs. 200/- for act only liability and Rs. 240/- liability to public risk. Section 95(a) of Motor Vehicles Act deal with statutory policy means act policy but not deal with comprehensive policy having separate agreement or separate premium being additional premium accepted by insurance company. Therefore, additional premium accepted by insurance company over and above act policy which covered risk of third party unlimited. This aspect has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 2819 of 1993 decided on 24/7/2000. Relevant discussion of said decision is quoted as under:

.........................

30. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta relied upon three decisions of Hon'ble Apex as referred above. In case of A. N. Subbulakshmi (supra) a question has been arise whether there is separate contract for payment by owner of vehicle and amount according to same has been paid or not. For the same, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 95(2)(a) - Under Section 95(2)(a) of the Act even in case of a comprehensive insured vehicle the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 50,000/- - An unlimited or a higher liability than the statutory liability of the insurer would arise only in case there is a separate contract and payment of additional premium by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, facts of that case is altogether different to present case because hear insured owner has paid additional premium of Rs. 240/- covering public risk which is more than premium of act policy. Therefore said decision is not applicable to facts of present case. In case of Keshav Bahadur (supra) as referred above it is observed that in respect to third party risk liability of insured has been considered on ground that in absence of any specific agreement undertaking liability in excess of statutory limit and payment of additional premium therefore insurer's liability would be confirmed to that provided in the statute. This decision is also not applicable to facts of present case because here additional premium having specific agreement undertaking liability by insurance company has been accepted. In case of Jameskutty Jacob (supra) question was that insured vehicle was 'motor cab' which was being used for hire or reward and was thus covered by Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act which prescribes a limited liability of Rs. 50,000/- only in respect of persons other than passengers carried for higher or reward. In case of Hon'ble Apex Court the child insured was not a passenger. The question which has been raised in these appeals are not raised before Hon'ble Apex Court because it relating to only legal liability to passenger not in respect to third party and policy was act only policy not covering public risk policy. Therefore that decision is also not applicable to facts of these cases. Therefore, contention of learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta relying upon Section 95(2) as referred above cannot be accepted. Learned advocate Mr. Satta not pointed out before this Court even before Claims Tribunal that risk of insurance company is limited by leading proper evidence before Claims Tribunal. The contention raised by insurance company before Claims Tribunal that insurance policy Exh.127 is issued while accepting limited liability. That contention is not proved by insurance company before Claims Tribunal while leading proper evidence of any officer who can explain terms and conditions of policy. Therefore in absence of such evidence merely reading Section 95(2) the Claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that insurance company having limited liability and said finding is erroneous finding while ignoring Rs. 240/- additional premium paid by insured-owner and what would be the effect of additional premium has not been considered by Claims Tribunal, Mehsana. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Satta cannot be accepted."