National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Larli Devi and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

These four appeals u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are directed against the common judgment/award dated 9.5.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar), whereby the amount of compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimant respondents.

Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company only contended that the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the liability of the insured, in respect of passengers was limited up to Rs. 15,000, whereas the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in holding the liability of the Insurance Company as unlimited, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal be set aside and their liability may be restricted up to Rs. 15,000.

Learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents contended that the learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence available on record, in detail and rightly held that the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited in these cases, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned judgment by this Court.

I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal.

Learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 has discussed the evidence in detail and relevant case law on the point. Learned Tribunal has considered that the appellant as well as the respondents, both have placed on record a copy of the insurance policy. Ex. 1 is the true copy of the insurance policy produced by Insurance''Company, whereas the original insurance policy produced by claimants was marked as Ex. 2. The Tribunal has observed that inthe original insurance policy Ex. 2, no amount was mentioned in the relevant column restricting the liability of the Insurance Company up to Rs. 15,000, whereas this amount was mentioned in the true copy of the insurance policy Ex. 1 placed on record. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal relied upon the original insurance policy, placed on record, wherein no amount was mentioned in the relevant column restricting the liability of the Insurance Company.

Apart from above, the learned Tribunal also considered that Rs. 240 were also paid as extra premium in the present case. The Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hastimal Lodha and Ors. SAC No. 3/1998 and other connected five appeals, decided on 5.12.2005, considered the liability of the Insurance Company, where Rs. 240 were paid as extra premium. The Division Bench held that the liability of the Insurance Company in such circumstance is unlimited.

In these circumstances, I find that the Tribunal rightly relied upon the original insurance policy, placed on record by the claimant Ex. 2, wherein the liability of the Insurance Company was not restricted to any amount meaning thereby the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. In addition to it, the extra premium of Rs. 240 was also paid and in view of above referred judgment of the Division Bench the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited.

In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned Tribunal, while holding the liability of the Insurance Company as unlimited.

There is no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-company and as such all these appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.