AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
The order in this appeal shall also decide the connected Miscellaneous Appeal No. 683 of 1995 (Manager, Capital Roadways & Finance Company v. Kamta Prasad and Ors.) as both the appeals arise out of same accident resulting in two deaths and in two separate claim petitions, decided separately by two awards dated 15-12-1995 passed by Shri K. K. Gupta, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisen and dated 27-4-1995 passed by Shri B. G. Yadav, 1st Additional District Judge, Raisen as Member, M.A.C.T. Raisen. In claim petition giving rise to M.A. No. 492/96 Mehtab Singh died in the motor accident for whose death the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- but the same has been directed to be paid only by the owner and the driver of the bus involved in the accident. In the same accident, Mishrilal also died and for his death in claim petition giving rise to M.A. No. 683/95 a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- has been awarded out of which the owner and driver of the bus involved in the accident have been directed to pay a sum of rupees 85,000/- and the liability of the insurance company is held to be limited to the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
The only facts necessary for decision of the two appeals are that the bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration No. CIB 450 hit the motor cycle No. MKC 4710 of which the rider was Mishrilal and the pillion rider was Mehtab Singh. As a result of the collision in the accident, both the riders of the motor-cycle, above-named, died. The Claims Tribunal presided by two different Judges passed different awards directing payments in different manner as stated above.
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- owner in both the appeals, first raised a ground that the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case for the death of Mehtab Singh grossly erred in completely absolving the insurance company from its liability. It is also urged that the Claims Tribunal in the claim case for the death of Mishrilal erred in restricting the liability of the insurance company only to Rs. 50,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant from the record of the Claims Tribunal in the two cases pointed out that the photo copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle was on record. In the claim case for the death of Mishrilal, in the written statement the insurance company did not dispute the fact that the bus was insured with the respondent insurance company. In the claim case for the death of Mehtab Singh, the photo copy of the insurance policy is on record. Yet, the Claims Tribunal in that case held that the insurance has not been duly proved by the claimants.
In both the appeals, the common ground urged is that the bus involved being insured with the respondent insurance company, under the terms of the policy the liability of the insurer for death of third party was unlimited and the Claims Tribunal overlooked the terms of the policy to wrongly hold, in the case of death of Mishrilal, that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
These two claims cases furnish an occasion to this Court to remind the Claims Tribunals of their duties in deciding claim petitions filed by dependents of the victims of accidents. Naturally, the victims of accidents suffer serious handicap as most of them neither know the nature and cause of accident nor they are aware whether the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident were insured or not. Whatever little information they can collect is furnished to the Claims Tribunal. Once the policy number is duly disclosed to the Claims Tribunal, as is the case in both these claim cases, and/or the photo copy of the policy is supplied, it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to direct the insurance company to produce the original policy in the cases. See - the following Rule 226 of M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 :
"226. Obtaining of information and documents necessary for awarding compensation u/s 140. - The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date."
See also Section 98 of the Act of 1939 which reads as under :
"98. Duty to give information as to insurance. - (1) No person against whom a claim is made in respect of any liability referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 shall on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim refuse to state whether or not he was insured in respect of that liability by any policy issued under the Provisions of this Chapter, or would have been so insured if the insurer had not avoided or cancelled the policy, nor shall he refuse, if he was or would have been so insured to give such particulars with respect to that policy as were specified in the certificate of insurance issued in respect thereof."
In the instant case, the photo copy of the policy was on record in both the cases. The two claim cases arising out of the same accident have been decided in two separate cases by two separate Judges. In one of the cases, the fact of insurance policy is held to be proved, but the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- whereas in the other case, the Claims Tribunal held that the insurance itself is not proved although in one of the two cases the fact of pendency of connected case in another Court was brought to the notice of the learned Member. Such eventualities giving rise to conflicting findings can be avoided if claims arising out of the same accident between same parties are clubbed together for trial and decision. See - Rule 237 of M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which on principle can be made applicable by obtaining orders for clubbing the cases for trial which arise from the same accident:
"237. Procedure in connected cases. - (1) Where two or more cases pending before a Claims Tribunal arise out of the same accident, and any issue involved is common to two or more cases, such cases, may, so far as the evidence bearing on such issue is concerned, be held simultaneously.
(2) Whereas action is taken under sub-rule (1) the evidence bearing on the common issue or issues shall be recorded on the record of one case and the Claims Tribunal shall certify under its hand on the records of any such other case, the extent to which evidence so recorded applies to such other case and the fact that the parties to such other case had the opportunity of being present, and, if they were present, of cross-examining the witnesses."
From the terms of the policy on record, we find that the liability of insurance company towards third party is not limited to Rs. 50,000/-. It is also not statutorily limited for the third party to the above limit. The insurance of the vehicle was not disputed in one of the claim cases and in another claim case the photo copy of the policy was on record. The Tribunal committed serious error in the case of Mehtab Singh in holding that there was no proof of insurance policy. We also find that under the terms of the policy the liability towards third party is not restricted to the limit of Rs. 50,000/-. The accident took place on 16-2-1988. The burden to prove that the liability of insurance company was limited to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per person including third party was on the insurance company which it has failed to discharge. Under the terms of policy on record, separate premium has been charged for third party insurance and for coverage of passengers with specified seating capacity. u/s 95(l)(b) of the Act of 1939, the liability of the insurance company for compulsory third party insurance is unlimited and the limit of Rs. 50,000/- per person as provided in sub-section (2)(b)(i)(ii) of Section 95 is in respect of persons or passengers carried in the bus. The riders of the motor cycles who met their deaths in the incident were third parties and, therefore, contractual and statutory liability of the insurance company is held to be unlimited.
Consequently, we allow both the appeals and direct that the compensation awarded shall be paid jointly and severally by owner, driver and the insurance company which has insured the bus involved. If the appellant in the two claims has paid any amount towards the award, the insurance company shall satisfy the entire award and reimburse the appellant as owner of the bus the amount paid by him. In the circumstances however, there shall be no order as to costs of these appeals.