United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Poka Durga Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4. the three pronouncements of the supreme court read together which in detail adverted to in shantibai's case (1 supra) are certain that the statutory liability under section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the act is maximum and consequently such a statutory liability can be overcome by collecting extra premium without a specific stipulation that the liability can exceed such a liability.orderb.k. somasekhara, j.1. there two appeals are filed by the appellant/insurance company against the common award of the motor accident claims tribunal, vijayawada in op nos. 32/87 and 21/87, dated 23-1-1990 awarding a total compensation 45 of rs. 1,00,000/- and fixing the total liability as against the appellant/insurer.2. the appellant is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. it raised the contention that the liability by virtue of the terms of the policy, ex.b-1, on the part of the insurer was rs. 15,000/- per passenger and the claimants being one of the passengers in the vehicle, the limit of liability could not have been more than rs. 15,000/- each. the tribunal has rejected such a contention and placed the entire liability on the appellant/insurer. aggrieved by that these two appeals are filed.3. the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has contended that in view of the law decided in new india insurance co. ltd. v. shanti bai 1995 acj 470 (sc). kunhimohamtned v. ahmedkutty, 1987 (2) acj 872 (sc). and national insurance co. ltd v. jugal kishore, 1988 acj 270 (sc). by the supreme court, the award of the tribunal imposing absolute liability on the appellant is wrong. the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents herein, mr. rangacharyulu, tried to support the award.4. the three pronouncements of the supreme court read together which in detail adverted to in shantibai's case (1 supra) are certain that the statutory liability under section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the act is maximum and consequently such a statutory liability can be overcome by collecting extra premium without a specific stipulation that the liability can exceed such a liability. furthermore, the mere use of the word 'comprehensive policy' which is meant for insuring the vehicle for so many purposes including the vehicle itself does not mean that the liability of the insurance company at all times would be absolute and unlimited. this court had an occasion to deal with a similar question in cma. no. 1379/88, dated 25-9-1996, wherein, following the above three pronouncements of the supreme court, it was held that the limit of liability of the insurance company per passenger is rs. 15,000/- only. the said decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of these appeals also.5. following the said decision, the appeals are allowed and the award of the motor accident claims tribunal, vijayawada in op nos. 32/87 and 21/87 dated 23-1-1990 is modified only to the effect that the limit of liability of the appellant/insurer (r.3 in the o.ps) shall be restricted to rs. 15,000/- per passenger only with the absolute liability to be joint and several as against respondents 1 and 2 in the op. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

B.K. Somasekhara, J.

1. There two appeals are filed by the appellant/insurance company against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada in OP Nos. 32/87 and 21/87, dated 23-1-1990 awarding a total compensation 45 of Rs. 1,00,000/- and fixing the total liability as against the appellant/insurer.

2. The Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. It raised the contention that the liability by virtue of the terms of the policy, Ex.B-1, on the part of the insurer was Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and the claimants being one of the passengers in the vehicle, the limit of liability could not have been more than Rs. 15,000/- each. The Tribunal has rejected such a contention and placed the entire liability on the appellant/insurer. Aggrieved by that these two appeals are filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer has contended that in view of the law decided in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai 1995 ACJ 470 (SC). Kunhimohamtned v. Ahmedkutty, 1987 (2) ACJ 872 (SC). and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC). by the Supreme Court, the award of the Tribunal imposing absolute liability on the appellant is wrong. The learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents herein, Mr. Rangacharyulu, tried to support the award.

4. The three pronouncements of the Supreme Court read together which in detail adverted to in Shantibai's case (1 supra) are certain that the statutory liability under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act is maximum and consequently such a statutory liability can be overcome by collecting extra premium without a specific stipulation that the liability can exceed such a liability. Furthermore, the mere use of the word 'comprehensive policy' which is meant for insuring the vehicle for so many purposes including the vehicle itself does not mean that the liability of the insurance company at all times would be absolute and unlimited. This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar question in CMA. No. 1379/88, dated 25-9-1996, wherein, following the above three pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it was held that the limit of liability of the Insurance Company per passenger is Rs. 15,000/- only. The said decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of these appeals also.

5. Following the said decision, the appeals are allowed and the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada in OP Nos. 32/87 and 21/87 dated 23-1-1990 is modified only to the effect that the limit of liability of the appellant/insurer (R.3 in the O.Ps) shall be restricted to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger only with the absolute liability to be joint and several as against respondents 1 and 2 in the OP. No costs.