Judgment:
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 129 of 1981 (Kailashchandra v. Omprakash). This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.3.1981 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 174 of 1979 whereby the claimant-respondent No. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- for sustaining injury resulting in the amputation of leg while alighting from the motor bus owned by respondent No. 3 and driven by respondent No. 2 with a further direction of entire amount to be paid by appellant insurance company.
2. The brief history of the case is that claimant was travelling on the motor bus on 22.5.1979. He was alighting from the bus in village Mothla but the driver (respondent No. 2 here) without caring for as to whether the person has alighted down, moved the bus. The claimant because of the jerk came beneath the wheel resulting in the injury, fracture and thereafter amputation.
3. The injured filed a claim petition claiming more than Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. After trial the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. The insurance company has been directed to make payment of the whole of the compensation amount. Hence this appeal by insurance company.
4. The owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 3 in this appeal, has also filed an appeal challenging award which has been registered as Misc. Appeal No. 129 of 1981. Learned Tribunal has held respondent No. 2, driver and respondent No. 3, owner of the vehicle, jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation amount and further held that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company (appellant here-M.A. No. 106 of 1981) it will be liable to reimburse the whole amount.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that claimant was a passenger. Its liability is limited under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the insurance company could not be saddled with the burden of making payment of whole of the compensation amount.
6. As against it, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the insurance company is liable to make payment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and the present amount is less than that; secondly, the person alighting from the vehicle would be treated as a third party and not a passenger.
7. Now, therefore, it has to be seen that whether the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 5,000/- as per the conditions of the policy and whether the claimant would be treated as a third party.
8. The appellant has relied on the motor policy and the conditions thereof. But this point has been decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), whereby it has been held that 'any one accident' means 'accident to any one' and the insurance company is liable to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- in this case) in respect of death or injury suffered by each one.
9. Though a contrary view has been taken in a case reported in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), wherein limited liability of the insurance company has been accepted. But it appears that the earlier judgment, reported above, was not brought to the notice of their Lordships who decided the later case. Moreover, the earlier judgment reported in Jadavji Keshavji Modi's case, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), is by three Judges of the Supreme Court while the later judgment is by two Judges of the same court and, therefore, the earlier judgment shall have a binding effect. It is, therefore, held that the insurance company is liable to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- in this case, as per the conditions of the policy.
10. This has come in the evidence that the claimant was alighting from the vehicle at village Mothla and had completed his journey. He was no more a passenger and will be deemed to be a third party. In the opinion of this court if a person while getting in the motor vehicle as a passenger or alighting from the motor vehicle after completing his journey, sustains injury because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, he will be entitled for the full compensation to be paid by the insurance company as is payable to a third party.
11. Thus, in either case the insurance company is liable to pay the whole of compensation amount.
12. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned that cannot be said to be excessive as there was not only fracture-in the leg of the claimant but the same had to be amputated and the claimant has lost one leg completely. The claimant is an agriculturist. Because of that physical infirmity he will have to employ a servant for agricultural operations. That employment is even for a few months in a year, i.e., for about four to five months. Looking to the present-day minimum wages which he will have to pay is Rs. 3,000/- per year to the servant. For getting that amount the claimant will have to deposit nearly Rs. 25.000/- for getting interest to that extent. Thus, in the opinion of this court the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant does not appear to be excessive.
13. As a result both these appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 400/-, if certified.