Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHIMAJITAO KANHOJIRAO SHIRKE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERA INSURANCE CO. LTD
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2000
BENCH:
A.P.Misra, Ruma Pal
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
The short question raised in this appeal 1s whether
the words "unlimied personal Injury and property damage"
upto Rs. 10 lakhs for which premium of Rs. 134/- was paid
as recorded In the Insurance policy itself covers the dearth
and bodily lnjury of the "insured or not. According to the
statement on behalf of the appellants, who are the claimants
before us, the language used therein clearly Indicates that
the insured would also be covered under It, while submission
on behalf of the Insurance company is, this only co-relates
to the damage of the property and has no correlation with
the personal injury or death of the insured.
The short facts are that the apoellant filed a suit
for recovery of Rs, 6,03;000/- from the
defendant-respondent, insurance company. The appellants are
the parents of the rjeceased Mahendra Shirke, who died in
the accident on 8th
January, 1980. The said deceased obtained loan from
Maharashtra Finance Corporation and Bank of Baroda under
"educated Unemployment Scheme" for purchasing goods truck In
the year 1977. He obtained the said loan under the
condition that. he will drive personally the said truck.
According to the appellants" case, the deceased Mahendra
insured his truck with the respondents to the tune of Rs.
10 lakhs, which 1s a cornorehensive Insurance covering risks
for unlimited personal injury and property. ’ The said
truck was also Insured as per the policy to the tune of Rs.
1,27,000/- for the damage to the property. It 1s not In
dispute that on the date of the accident the said truck was
covered with the said Insurance policy. In fact; the
question which we have to decide 1s the Interpretation.of
the policy Itself.
On these facts, the trial court decreed the suit in
favour of the appellants for the aforesaid amount alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum. The Trial Court while considering
Issues No. 1 and 9 after considaring the submissions of
both the parties concludes that the payment of Rs. 134/- as
premium was for the unlimited personal Injury to the life of
the insured as well as to the property to the tune of Rs.
10 lakhs and finally recorded its finding to the fol lowing
effect: -
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"Moreover, there 1s no iota of evidence to prove that
the contents as against premium at Rs. 134/- as unlimited
personal Injury and
damages to be Rs, 10 lakhs has been wrongly or
misakenly shown in that. policy,"
This finding is recorded in view of the stand taken by
the insurance company before the TriaJ Court, namely, the
recording of the words "unlimited personal injury’ was
wrongly recorded therein. Tn support of this, reference is
made by learned counsel for the appellants to the written
statement tiPed by the insurance company, which 1s to the
foTiowina ef feet:-
"The noting of ’Unlimited personal Tn.jury is
redundant; the premium is accepted either to cover property
damage or personal injury. It is due to oversight/mistake,
the wording "Unlimited personal Injury’ is typed against the
additional premium of Rs. 134/- ..,.." Being aggrieved by
the order of the Trial Court, the insurance company fi^ed an
appear before the High Court and by means of the impugned
order the High Court set aside the judgment of the TriaJ
Court and avowed the appeal,
The High Court holds that insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs (appellants
herein) on account of death of insured Mahendra under the
terms of the said policy. This conclusion is drawn in view