Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 38 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Jameskutty Jacob
RESPONDENT:
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2003
BENCH:
S. N. VARIAVA & (H. K SEMA.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 17th October, 1997.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 5th February, 1986 an accident took place in which a young boy
was seriously injured. A claim was filed against the Appellant, who
was shown as the owner of the vehicle, and the Insurance Company.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
with interest thereon. In so awarding it did not accept the contention
of the Appellant that the Appellant was not owner of the vehicle
inasmuch as he had sold the vehicle in 1983. The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal also did not accept the contention that the liability of
the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. It held both the
Appellant and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable.
The Insurance Company filed an Appeal. It claimed that the
Policy was an ’Act only’ policy on which no extra premium had been
paid for making the liability unlimited. It was submitted that as the
policy was an ’Act only’ policy the liability of the Insurance Company
was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only under Section 95 (2)(b)(i) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court accepted this contention
and limited the liability of the Insurance Company to a sum of Rs.
50,000/-.
After this Appeal was filed this Court directed the Insurance
Company to produce the complete policy as also any other document
to show that the vehicle insured was a taxi and not a private car. The
Insurance Company had produced the policy. We, however, do not
find, from the Policy or from any other document produced on record,
that the vehicle was a taxi. Undoubtedly the policy is an ’Act only’
policy, however, even in respect of an ’Act only’ policy the Insurance
Company would be liable for the statutory amount as payable under
Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The relevant portion of
Section 95 reads as follows:
95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of
insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any
one accident up to the following limits, namely -
(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of
one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all,
including the liabilities, if any, arising under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily
injury to, employees (other than the driver),
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
not exceeding six in number, being carried in
the vehicle;
(b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which
passengers are carried for hire or reward or by
reason of or in pursuance of a contract of
employment,-
(i) in respect of persons other than
passengers carried for hire or reward,
a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;
(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of
fifteen thousand rupees for each
individual passenger;
(c) save as provided in clause (d), where the
vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the
amount of liability incurred;
(d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit
of rupees six thousand in all in respect of
damage to any property of a third party.
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(4-A) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx"
Accordingly, it is to be seen that if the vehicle was a vehicle in
which passengers are carried for hire or reward then the liability would
be limited to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2)(b)(i). However, if the
vehicle does not carry passengers for hire or reward, then under
Section 95(2)(c) the liability of the Insurance Company would be the
amount of liability incurred.
In this case, nobody has appeared on behalf of the Insurance
Company in spite of the fact that they were served. We are informed
by counsel for the Appellant that there is no evidence on record to
show that the vehicle was a taxi. We, therefore, fail to understand on
what basis the High Court has restricted the liability of the Insurance
Company to Rs. 50,000/-. In view of the fact that it has not been
shown to us that the vehicle was a taxi, the case would be covered by
Section 95 (2)(c) and the liability of the Insurance Company would be
the amount of liability incurred, even though it is an ’Act only’ Policy.
Under the circumstances, the impugned Judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
reinstated.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs.