Babi Bala Devi and ors. Vs. Sri Ramlal Nonia and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - 2. particularly the schedule of premium clearly establishes that only the 3 rd party basic premium, premium for liability to ten passengers and employee of the vehicle have been paid by the insured.m.y. eqbal, j. 1. this appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.2.2007 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, hazaribagh in claim case no. 186/2003, whereby the tribunal dismissed the claim case holding that the claimants are not entitled to compensation. 2. the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 3. the deceased rakesh kumar bhatt was the owner of the trekker bearing registration no. jh 10a-2721. the deceased along with his family members were traveling in the said trekker and were going to deoghar from his house. the trekker was being driven by the deceased, who was the owner of the said vehicle. as soon as the vehicle reached at the place of accident, it turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was declared dead in the hospital. the claimants, who are mother, brother and sister, filed claim case for grant of compensation. the respondent, with whom the vehicle was insured, contested the case by filing written statement challenging the maintainability of the claim case on various grounds. the case of the insurance company is that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and, therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation. further case is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death and bodily injury to third party and not the owner of the vehicle, who himself was driving the vehicle. 4. the tribunal, while deciding the question of liability, came to the conclusion that no separate premium for personal risk of the insured owner was paid and as such, the owner was not covered under the policy. in that view of the matter, the insurance company has no liability for payment of compensation. para 11 and 12 of the judgment of the tribunal reads as under: 11. on perusal of the insurance policy (ext.-7) marked on behalf of the claimants and the duplicate copy of insurance certificate of passengers carrying commercial vehicle along with policy marked as ext.-a on behalf of the o.p. no. 2. particularly the schedule of premium clearly establishes that only the 3 rd party basic premium, premium for liability to ten passengers and employee of the vehicle have been paid by the insured. no premium for personal risk of the insured himself was paid unless and until personal accident insurance policy is issued it does not cover the liability to compensate the legal representatives and heirs of the deceased owner. the insurer insures the liability of the insured and not the insured himself. in the absence of any liability to pay compensation on account of personal death of the deceased insured, there can be no rational justification for passing an award of compensation against insurance company as it has been observed by the hon'ble calcutta high court in above referred ruling. 12. in the absence of any liability to pay compensation there can be no rational justification for passing an award of compensation against the opposite party. considering all such facts and circumstances finding no substantial reason for passing award this tribunal holds that the claimants are not entitled for any amount of compensation. accordingly, issue no. iv is decided against the claimants and in favour of the o.ps.5. mr. a.k.lal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants- appellants, put heavy reliance on the decision of the supreme court in the case of amrit lal sood and anr. v. kaushalya devi thapar and ors. : [1998]2scr284 and in the case of new india assurance co. v. kendra devi and ors. 2008(1) transport and accidents cases 14 (sc). learned counsel submitted that the deceased shall be treated as a third person and therefore insurance company cannot down its liability. 6. on the other hand, mr g.c.jha, learned counsel for the insurance company, put reliance on the decision in the case of dhanraj v. new indian assurance co. ltd and anr. : (2004)8scc553 . 7. it has not been disputed by the claimants that the vehicle in question was insured against third party risk and no separate premium was paid covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle. 8. in the case of dhanraj v. new india assurance co. ltd. and anr. : (2004)8scc553 , the question that fell for consideration before the supreme court was as to under which circumstances the owner of the vehicle will be covered under the policy. in that case the supreme court after discussing section 147 of the motor vehicle act, held as under: 8. thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 9. in the case of oriental insurance co. ltd, v. sunita rathi it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property. thus, the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party. the insurance company has no liability also.' 10. in this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the downer himself. we are unable to accept the contention that the premium of rs. 4989 paid under the heading 'own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury. under the heading 'own damage', the words 'premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories' appear. it is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. an owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. in this case there is no such insurance. 9. the decision relied upon by mr. lal in the case of amrit lal (supra) the facts of the case was quite different. in that case the fiat car owned by 2 nd party collided with a gods carrier on the high way. the car was being driven by the first party, a brother of the second party. the car was insured with 5 th respondent. an injured was an advocate and was traveling in the said car and sustained injury. a claim case was filed. on those facts their lordships of the supreme court held as under: 8. thus, under section ii 1(a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to 'any person'. the expression 'any person' would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously traveling in the car. the remaining part of clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising out of and in the case of employment of such person bys the insured. in such cases the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the act. in so far as gratuitous passengers are concerned there is no limitation in the policy as such. hence under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimant. we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the high court in this case as the terms of the policy are unambiguous. 10. in the case of dhanraj v. new india assurance co. ltd. (supra), in similar facts of the case, the supreme court observed:thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. in the case of oriental insurance co. ltd. v. sunita rathi : air1997sc4228 , it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property. thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also. in this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. we are unable to accept the contention that the premium of rs. 4989 paid under the heading 'own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury. under the heading 'own damage', the words 'premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories' appear. it is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. an owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. in this case there is no such insurance. 11. in the light of the aforesaid ratio decided by the supreme court, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and award needs no interference by this court. 12. for the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.