Ramesh Gupta Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - in this situation, it was clearly incumbent upon the truck driver to have stopped rather than to have proceeded ahead without knowing whether or not the road was clear. this being so, the finding of the tribunal holding the truck driver to be wholly at fault, clearly warrants no interference in appeal. this is indeed a contention which cannot be sustained keeping in view the well-settled position in law now, namely, that the liability of the insurance company must be held to be unlimited unless a specific plea is taken by the insurance company that its liability is limited and there is the policy of insurance on record to substantiate it.s.s. sodhi, j. 1. the appeal here is by the owner of the offending truck seeking to challenge his liability for the compensation awarded. 2. a drilling machine was being taken from karnal to ambala. it went out of order near stiarif garh bridge. sadhu ram, who was the driver thereof, parked it on the side and got under it to repair it. it was then that truck pbt-5217 came from the side of karnal and dashed into this drilling machine as a result of which sadhu ram sustained serious injuries and later died. this happened on may 25, 1982, at about 9.30 p.m. it was the finding of the tribunal that the truck-driver was wholly to blame for this accident. a sum of rs. 70,000 was awarded as compensation to the widow and children of sadhu ram, the deceased. the liability for the payment of the compensation awarded was fastened upon the respondent-insurance company to the extent of rs. 50,000 while the balance was held to be payable by the driver and the owner of the truck. 3. the attempt in the first instance was to establish that this was a case of contributory negligence. the contention in this behalf being that the drilling machine had been parked on the metalled portion of the road without any parking light or other indication. a reading, however, of the testimony of p.w.-3, sardara ram who was travelling on this drilling machine with sadhu ram, the deceased, would show that the machine had been parked on the kacha portion of the road on the left hand side and what is more, both the front and the back lights of this machine were on when sadhu ram was repairing it. the light at the back was red. the only witness examined to controvert this was the truck driver, rw 1, sohan singh, who deposed that there were four or five vehicles coming from the opposite direction* with their head-lights on and it was on that account that he could not notice whether there was anything lying ahead of his truck and this is what led to his truck striking against the drilling machine. in other words, the truck driver admitted to being blinded by the headlights of the oncoming traffic. in this situation, it was clearly incumbent upon the truck driver to have stopped rather than to have proceeded ahead without knowing whether or not the road was clear. negligence on the part of the truck driver is thus writ large. this being so, the finding of the tribunal holding the truck driver to be wholly at fault, clearly warrants no interference in appeal. 4. the main point which arises for determination in this case is with regard to the liability of the respondent-insurance company. in this behalf, it is pertinent to note that no plea had been raised by the insurance company to the effect that its liability was in any manner limited, the plea put forth in the written statement being that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. this stands negatived by the insurance policy which has been placed on record and it is not now suggested that even the truck was not insured. 5. mr. hemant kumar, appearing for the respondent-insurance company, sought to contend that as the policy of insurance had been placed on record by the truck-owner, he must be held to be bound by the terras thereof implying thereby that the liability of the insurance company should be taken to be limited to what is stated therein, regardless of the fact that no plea had been raised by the insurance company in its written statement that its liability was in any manner limited. this is indeed a contention which cannot be sustained keeping in view the well-settled position in law now, namely, that the liability of the insurance company must be held to be unlimited unless a specific plea is taken by the insurance company that its liability is limited and there is the policy of insurance on record to substantiate it. 6. a pertinent feature of the matter here is that even the policy of insurance as has come on record does not disclose any limitation with regard to the liability of the insurance company, inasmuch as it contains no clause stipulating any limitation with regard to the liability of the insurance company. this is thus an added reason for holding the liability of the insurance company to extend to the entire amount awarded. 7. such being the situation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the respondent-insurance company must be held to be liable for the entire amount awarded.8. the award of the tribunal is modified accordingly and this appeal is hereby accepted with costs. counsel fee rs. 500.