National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maya Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
customs - search and seizure--confiscation--raid of petitioner's premises on suspicion of his importing goods against advance import licences and disposing of such goods in contravention of notification--search not resulting in seizure of advance licences--cash with petitioner seized on suspicion of being sale proceeds of smuggled goods--legality of seizure--mere suspicion, whether can be basis of search and seizure--customs act (52 of 1962), sections 106, 110, 121, 123. - 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 these circumstances, there is clearly no warrant to hold that the liability of the insurance company was limited to only rs. act, 1939, were next sought to be pressed in aid by the counsel for the insurance company, but these are clearly of no avail.sodhi, j.1. the controversy here concerns the extent of the liability of the insurapce company for payment of the amount awarded as compensation.2. the facts relevant to this matter are that vijay kumar, a liquor contractor, was killed in an accident with a tractor. he was travelling on his motor cycle at that time. this happened on august 14, 1974, near village ram nagar on the rampura-maur road.3. the tribunal, holding negligence of the tractor driver to be the cause of the accident, awarded rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the claimants, smt. maya devi, the widow, rajesh kumar, the minor son, and sita devi, the mother of the deceased.4. as regards the liability for payment of the amount awarded, the tribunal held that it ' is payable by the insurance company, respondent no. 2, as the tractor was insured with it, to the extent it is bound by the contract, according to law, and the remaining amount will be paid by karam singh, respondent no. 1'.5. in the appeal filed by the tractor owner, the point urged was that the liability of the insurance company extended to the entire amount awarded. according to mr. m.b. singh, counsel for the respondent-insurance company in the other appeal filed by it; the legal position was that the liability was limited to rs. 50,000.6. the amount claimed as compensation in this case was rs. 1 lakh, which was ultimately the amount awarded to the claimants. in the return filed by it, the insurance company had indeed raised the plea that its maximum liability was rs. 50,000, if at all it was held liable. the most important evidence on this issue was undoubtedly the insurance policy itself. what is on record, however, is only exh. r-1 which appears to be a carbon copy of the policy of insurance and that too of only a part thereof. in the column, limits of liability, the figure, rs. 50,000, is mentioned, but it is against the column ' limit of the amount of the company's liability under section 11(1)(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event'. there is no evidence on record to explain what this clause means. at the time of hearing, counsel for the owner produced the original policy of insurance, now marked as exh. x, and a reference thereto showed that this clause was with regard to the damage to property caused by the use of the motor vehicle. there is another separate clause contained in exh. r-1 which related to compensation payable in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, any person caused by the use of a motor vehicle this column was left blank. in these circumstances, there is clearly no warrant to hold that the liability of the insurance company was limited to only rs. 50,000 in this case. the provisions of section 95 of the m.v. act, 1939, were next sought to be pressed in aid by the counsel for the insurance company, but these are clearly of no avail. there is no bar in section 95 to the policy of insurance covering a liability in excess of the amounts specified therein.7. for the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the tractor owner to the extent of the entire amount awarded and, consequently, the liability of the insurance company extends to the full amount.8. in the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is herebydismissed, while that filed by the owner of the tractor is accepted withcosts. counsel's fee rs. 300.