TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 1969, driving a threewheeler scooter when he met with an accident with bus No. DLP- 3699, driven by Shri Rai Singh, Respondent No. 2 and owned by M/s. Delhi Janata Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Respondent No. 3, He sustained injuries consequent upon which he made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant which was the insurer of the bus aforesaid. The claim of Respondent No. 1 was contested by the appellant and also by Respondent No. 3 but proceeded ex parte against Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of ₹ 10.000 recoverable jointly and severally from the appellant and Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the award o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be prior to 2nd March, 1970, the date of commencement of Amending Act 56 of 1969, no award in excess of ₹ 20,000 could have been made against the appellant. Before dealing with the submission we may point out that the policy under which the bus aforesaid was insured had not been filed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court. A photostat copy of the policy has, however, been filed in this Court and learned counsel for the respondents did not have objection in the same being admitted in evidence. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time reads as under: 95. (1) .............. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that the insurer can always take policies covering risks which are not covered by the requirements of Section 95 of the Act. We have accordingly perused the photostat copy of the policy to ascertain whether risk for any amount higher than the amount of ₹ 20,000 contemplated by clause (b) aforesaid was covered. Our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respondents to the circumstance that at the right hand corner on the top of page 1 of the policy the words COMMERCIAL VEHICLE COMPREHENSIVE were printed. On this basis and on the basis that the premium paid was higher than the premium of an act only policy it was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the liability of the appellant was unlimit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the policy in the instant case it would be seen that Section II thereof deals with liability to third parties. Sub-section (1) minus the proviso thereto reads as hereunder: 1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle) . The Schedule to the policy indicates the limits of liability and the amount of premium paid. The limits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (I.E.V.) thereof having been shown as ₹ 40,000. In this view of the matter the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had in the instant case undertaken an unlimited liability does not obviously have any substance. The liability under the policy in the instant case was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act namely ₹ 20,000. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability. Learned counsel for the appellant then urged relying o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions contained in this bahalf in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. In the instant case since as seen above the appellant did not undertake in the policy any liability in excess of the statutory liability the award against it could be only in accordance with the said statutory liability. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This Court has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
