National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Selvambal and Others

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge),

Erode in M.C.O.P. No. 146 of 1988. The National Insurance Company Limited, the third respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in the above

appeal.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company is as regards the maximum liability for

which the Insurance Company would be liable per passenger.

In this case, the deceased was a non-fare paying passenger. He was not employed either by the owner of the lorry or by the owner of the

goods. The stand of the Insurance Company is that a perusal of the policy would disclose that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company to a

non-fare paying passenger will be Rs. 10,000/- and the maximum limit for anyone accident would be Rs. 50,000/-. In dealing with this objection,

the Tribunal had held that in the instant case, it was only one accident and the number of the death was also one and, therefore, the maximum

liability of the Insurance Company at Rs. 50,000/- would be attracted. This point has been very elaborately dealt with by the learned Counsel for

the appellant/Insurance Company. Several judgments have been cited in support of his contention, that the maximum liability for one passenger will

be limited only to the amount mentioned in the policy. It is unnecessary to refer to all those judgments except for referring to the following latest

judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in M/s. Road Transport Company Vs. Bhan Singh and Another, wherein it has been held that as per the

premium paid and risk covered by the additional premium, it would be subject to the limitation of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of one person and Rs.

75,000/- in total as prescribed in the policy.

A Division Bench of this Court has also held in Bakthavatsalam Vs. S. Rajalakshmi and Others, that in respect of the policy covering risk of a

non-fare paying passenger, the liability of the Insurance Company was only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- as prescribed in the policy.

To the same effect, K. Govindarajan, J. held in the unreported judgment dated 12.2.1999 rendered in C.R.P. Nos. 3632/95, etc. Batch, that

the limit of liability of the Insurance Company under the said circumstances with respect of one passenger or more number of passengers has been

specifically indicated in the policy itself which limits the total liability. It was also held by the learned Judge that the liability of the Insurance

Company cannot be held to be unlimited one. Reference was also made to the unreported judgment of P. Sathasivam, J. in C.M.A. No. 740 of

1993, dated 7.4.1999. The learned Judge after considering the provisions u/s 95, has held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited

to Rs. 15,000/- in respect of one passenger.

The learned Counsel for the respondent however seeks to place reliance on the expression ""any one accident"" and by referring to the judgment

of the Supreme Court reported in 1981 ACJ 507, Motor Owner''s Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors. Reliance was placed on

the interpretation by the Supreme Court as regards the expression of ""any one accident"". I am unable to find any observation in the said judgment

of the Supreme Court as would support the contention of the respondent herein. All that Supreme Court has pointed out is that the expression of

any one accident'' would mean accident to anyone. The Supreme Court did not lay down that even in respect of a single passenger, he would

claim the maximum liability even if a specific limit is provided in the policy itself, to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per passenger as in the present case.

The interpretation made by the Supreme Court would be relevant only to the claims made by more than one claimant in respect of one accident. In

such a case the liability could be a sum more than the maximum limit specified in the insurance policy. Therefore, any reliance on the said judgment

would be of no avail to the respondents herein. With the result, I hold, that the view of the Tribunal, in this context, has to be set aside and the

liability of the Insurance Company is limited and to be fixed at Rs. 10,000/- as indicated in the policy.

Subject to the above observations, the appeal is allowed limiting the liability only to Rs. 10,000/- as against the Insurance Company and it is

open to the claimant to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the balance of the compensation amount. No costs.