United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lukni Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]shiv narayan dhingra, j.1. this appeal has been preferred by insurance company against an award passed by the tribunal on 19th march, 2001 whereby the tribunal awarded compensation of rs. 1 ,77,060/- to the claimants and held that it was the liability of the insurance company to pay the entire claim. it is submitted that the tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited because of non-proving of the insurance policy whereas there was sufficient material before the tribunal to show that premium of rs. 240/- only was charged and the liability of insurance company was, therefore, limited to rs. 50,000/-.2. i find that the insurance company has even not cared to read the provisions of even 1939 act as amended in october, 1982 when the legislature amended the limits of minimum liability from rs. 50,000/- to rs. 1,50,000/-. however in any case, the plea taken by the insurance company that since the premium was rs. 240/-, the liability of the insurance company was limited to rs. 50,000/- is not tenable. this court in f.a.o. no. 257 of 1991 titled neeta trehan and ors. v. gopal krishan and ors., decided on 17th may, 2010, observed as under:14. the issue arises whether this insurance cover obtained by the insured was limited to a liability of rs. 1,50,000/- being the minimum liability for which a vehicle was required to be insured by the owner or this premium covered wider liability. counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the judgment in veena pruthi's case (supra) given by the division bench of this court where the division bench of this court held that if the premium was rs. 125/-, the liability would be limited to rs. 1,50,000/- and not unlimited. on the same logic it is stated that if the premium was rs. 240/- for class a(2) vehicle, the liability of insurance company would be limited to rs. 1,50,000/-.15. where obtaining of an insurance cover is made mandatory by statute, the contract is to be interpreted in the light of statutory provisions. in case of motor vehicles, obtaining of an insurance cover by the owners of vehicles is a statutory requirement. thus, an insurance policy has to be interpreted keeping in view the statutory provisions and the rules of tariff as framed by the advisory board. under the tariff rules, two separate tariffs are provided for 'act only liability' and for 'public risk'. it cannot be said that the advisory board provided tariff for act only liability' as a superfluous phenomenon. the advisory board was having in mind that where the owner wants to take an insurance policy covering the minimum liability under section 95 of the act, then the premium should be different. if the owner wants wider liability then the premium should be different and that is the reason that for act only liability', a premium of rs. 200/- was provided and for public risk', a premium of rs. 240/- was provided. public risk is a wider term and takes into account the entire risk faced by the owner for bringing vehicle on road. if there had been no compulsion under the act to obtain an insurance policy, the only insurance cover which owner could have obtained from an insurance company for covering public risk would have been this that he would pay rs. 240/- and get the public risk covered. if the act would have not prescribed any limit, the public risk would naturally have been unlimited. the act prescribed that every owner of vehicle should get insurance cover covering a minimum amount. beyond that, the act did not provide anything. it is under these circumstances that the tariff advisory committee prescribed separate premium for 'act only policy' and separate premium for a 'public risk policy'. i, therefore, consider that the public risk' premium would cover unlimited amount of risk and would not cover a limited amount of risk..18. there is another aspect to be kept in mind. when an owner approaches insurance agent for insurance, he is told what would be the tariff payable by him and on payment of tariff, an insurance certificate or cover note is issued. the contract of insurance, thus, stands concluded on receipt of tariff/premium in terms of the tariff schedule as laid down by advisory board. insurance policy is subsequently mailed to owner by insurance company. if insurance company unilaterally inserts a clause in the policy which is contrary to tariff regulations, such a clause is not binding. all insurance policies are in the shape of one standard performa used for different kinds of coverage. if while sending insurance policy to owner the company official does not score off non-applicable clauses or inserts a limited liability clause which is contrary to the tariff charged from owner, such a clause is not binding.'3. in the present case, the insurance company has charged a premium of rs. 240/- for 'third party liability', that is, public liability. the tariff rate for class b (1) passenger carrying vehicle prevalent at that time was as under:class b (1) : passenger carrying vehicles- (excluding passenger risks)a) buses/(including tourist buses)b) hotel/school omnibusesc) airline busessubject to endorsement no. 26 and compulsory excess of rs. 500/- except in the case of liability to the public risk.maximum licensedpassenger carrying capacityown damageliability to the public risks'act only' liabilitynot exceeding 18 seatsrs. 280 + 1.10% oni.e.v.rs. 240/-rs. 200/-not exceeding 36 seatsrs. 360 + 1.10% oni.e.v.rs. 240/-rs. 200/-not exceeding 60 seatsrs. 440 + 1.10% oni.e.v.rs. 240/-rs. 200/-exceeding60 seatsrs. 545 + 1.80% oni.e.v.rs. 240/-rs. 200/-4. it is apparent from perusal of this tariff rate that in case of limited liability, the premium was rs. 200/- and not rs. 240/-. it was incumbent upon the insurance company to show as to how, by charging a premium of rs. 240/-, which was not premium for an 'act only liability' premium, a claim could be made by it that its liability was limited as per 'act only'. the premium charged was liability to 'public risk' without any limit.5. i, therefore, consider that the tribunal rightly held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, though the route adopted by the tribunal was different. the appeal is hereby dismissed.