Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Another vs Bhikalal Mulchand Vora and Others

H.H. Kantharia, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on September 30,1980 in Special Civil Suit No. 201 of 1972.

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

One Jaswantlal was the son of respondent No. 1, Bhikalal Mulchand Vora (since deceased) now represented by his legal heirs and representatives and respondent No. 2, Jasodaben Bhikalal Vora. Respondent No. 4, Kusumben Jaswantlal Vora, is the widow of the said Jaswantlal. Jaswantlal was going to Pune from his native place Talegaon Dabhade by Bombay-Pune Highway on his motor cycle No. MHB 2680 at about 4.30 p.m. on May 30,1970. He met with an accident on that day and died. Bus No. MHH 8659 belonging to the first appellant, M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited which was driven by second appellant, Ramchandra alias Rampyare Bhovara was involved in the said accident. Therefore, special civil suit No. 201 of 1972 was filed in the Court of the learned trial Judge by the mother and father of Jaswantlal, impleading his widow Kusumben as one of the defendants. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 i.e. the widow of Jaswantlal were entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. The learned trial Judge thereafter fixed the liability of the third respondent, Jupiter General Insurance Company, to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as liability of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as owner and driver of the said vehicle by the impugned judgment and order.

Being aggrieved, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present appeal.

Mr. Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, made a limited submission that the learned trial Judge ought to have held that the limit of liability of respondent No. 3 (the Insurance Company) was extended to Rs. 50,000/- by the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1969 which had received the assent of the President of India on December 29,1969 and which came in force from March 2,1970. In the submission of Mr. Joshi, therefore, in view of the said amendment the full liability of Rs. 40,000/- was that of respondent No. 3 and the appellants should not have been saddled with any liability by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, in his usual fairness, submitted that in view of the amendment to Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Year 1969, the liability of the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in a case like this and, therefore, the learned trial Judge was not right in saddling the appellants with the liability of Rs. 20,000/-. In other words, Mr. Kamat very fairly agreed with the submission made by Mr. Joshi on behalf of the appellants. Such being the legal position, this appeal succeeds and the same should be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is set aside to the extent of saddling the appellants with the liability of Rs. 20,000/- and it is hereby clarified that the entire liability of Rs. 40,000/- shall be that of respondent No. 3, Jupiter General Insurance Company now succeeded by Oriental Insurance Company Limited. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Mr. Kamat submits at this stage that his clients be permitted to deposit the remaining sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the trial Court within two weeks. The request made by Mr. Kamal is granted. Upon respondent No. 3 depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the trial Court, the appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.