TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- yet it was to first pay the amount awarded to the claimants and recover amount in excess of ₹ 50,000/- from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows: One Karan Singh, conductor of the bus no.DEP-3514 lost his life in an accident which took place on 14.7.1984. The bus belonged to M/s Mewat Transport Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured'). The bus was driven by deceased Karan Singh and it dashed in a tanker no.HRG-2852. The impact was so intense and severe that several persons sitting in the bus died, while many others sustained injuries. The widow, minor children and parents of aforesaid Karan Singh lodged claim petition claiming com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance-company is limited to ₹ 50,000/-, as held by the Tribunal. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to go into the question relating to either maintainability of cross-objections before the High Court against the appellant alone or as to the enhancement of compensation when the owner and driver have not filed appeal against the impugned judgment. 6. The questions that were considered by the Constitution Bench are as follows: The question involved in these appeals is whether in a case of insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, in case of payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) or the insurer would be liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant may be required to pay the entire amount and recover it from the owner. In the light of the modification of the impugned Award, such question does not arise. 9. It is true that in certain cases this Court has, after looking into the fact situation, directed the insurance company to make payment with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the liability from the insured. Those decisions were given on the facts situation of the cases concerned. 10. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. 11. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 14. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
