National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - johari, the..........alongwith mr. rajesh panwar, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 9.(2). this appeal is filed by the national insurance company ltd. jodhpur against the order in appeal no. 153/1988 and 205/1988 against the judgment and award of motor accident claims tribunal, jodhpur dt. 27a1988 passed in claim case no. 119/94 whereby the tribunal had awarded a sum of rs. 1, 04.000/- together with interesl holding the insurance company liable for the entire amount.(3). according to mr. johari, the learned judge while maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded, has increased the rate of interesl from 10% to 12% and has dismissed the appeal of the appellant end since judgment is bad, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.(4). we have perused the judgment of the learned single judge which would show that the policy was a comprehensive policy and the statutory liability of theinsurance company had also been raised from rs. 50, 000/- to rs. 1.5 lacs with effect from 1.5.1982 while the accident occurred on 20.9.1984 and therefore the appeal filed by the insurance company had been dismissed. according to mr. johari, reasonings given by the learned single judge are wholly bad. ii.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Lakshmanan, CJ.

(1) Heard Shri Sanjeev Johari, counsel for the appellant, Shri R.K. Mehta, counsel for respondents No. 10 and 11 and Shri B.L Tinwari alongwith Mr. Rajesh Panwar, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 9.

(2). This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. Jodhpur against the order in appeal no. 153/1988 and 205/1988 against the judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 27A1988 passed in claim case no. 119/94 whereby the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 04.000/- together with interesl holding the Insurance Company liable for the entire amount.

(3). According to Mr. Johari, the learned Judge while maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded, has increased the rate of interesl from 10% to 12% and has dismissed the appeal of the appellant end since judgment is bad, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

(4). We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge which would show that the policy was a comprehensive policy and the statutory liability of theInsurance Company had also been raised from Rs. 50, 000/- to Rs. 1.5 lacs with effect from 1.5.1982 while the accident occurred on 20.9.1984 and therefore the appeal filed by the Insurance Company had been dismissed. According to Mr. Johari, reasonings given by the learned Single Judge are wholly bad. II is further submitted that finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is liable for entire amount simply because the cover is comprehensive without anything to show that the insurance Company under took extended liability by charging additional premium is wrong. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the entire amount. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Sec. 95(2) as it existed after amendment of 20.9.1984 which according to Mr. Johari would show that liability of the Insurance Company to third parties where the vehicle involved is a vehicle used for covering passenger for hire or reward was maintained to Rs. 50, 000/-. It is further submitted that in this head of liability, no amendment was effected by the Amendment Act, 1982 which would show that there by the liability of the Insurance Company with respect to the passengers of public service vehicle was increased from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 15, 000/- but not with respect to third parties simply. Similarly with respect to goods vehicle, limit of liability with respect to third parties was increased from Rs. 50, 000/- to Rs. 1.5 lacs but there was no such increase with respect to third party liabilities in the accident caused by the public service vehicle. It is submitted that vehicle in the present case is a public service vehicle to be used for carrying passengers for hire or reward and the statutory liability of the Company was limited to Rs. 50, 000/- only and the learned Judge has committed an error in talcing into account the provisions of Sec. 95(2) (a) instead of 95(2) (b) which vitiates the judgment.

(5). Mr. R.K. Mehta, counsel for respondents No. 10 and 11 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narain Das Mehta and Others (1), which in turn was filed by the same Insurance Company. In the above case, the Insurance Company contended that it is liable upto statutory limit of Rs. 50, 000/- but despite burden of proof placed on it, it failed to place on record the policy and prove the extent of its liability. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the Insurance Company is liable for the entire amount awarded.

(6). At this juncture, Shri Johari sought our permission to place the records including the original insurance policy. We are unable to countenance the said request. Before the learned Single Judge, the Insurance Company has filed true copies of insurance policy being no. DCV 12671 and CV 5 876902 which is not even signed by any person. The originals have not been filed and only true attested copy cannot be filed. It is settled law that true copy cannot be taken as primary evidence. Prayer for acceptance of the same was made. In this view of the matter, learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed.