UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD v. JASHIBEN WD/O DECD. TRIBHOVAN RANCHHODBHAI & 13

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus JASHIBEN WD/O DECD. TRIBHOVAN RANCHHODBHAI & 13 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIL PARIKH FOR MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PN BAVISHI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. None for Defendant(s) : 6 - 10. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 11 - 12. - for Defendant(s) : 13 - 14. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/05/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT

1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated FA/1006/1997 JUDGMENT

09.08.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1064 of 1988 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.234000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition till its realization.

2.0 In the present case on 21.03.1988 Tribhovanbhai Ranchhodbhai who was working as a Contractor was going on motor cycle No. GUN

At that time, the tractor-trailer No. GRJ 8210 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle. As a result of this, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The heirs of the deceased, therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the impugned award came to be passed which is challenged in this appeal.

3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that even as per the provisions of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the appellant- Insurance Company statutorily was required to insure only to the extent of Rs. 150000/-; that no additional premium covering larger liability was paid by the owner of the tractor-trailer and the appellant-Insurance Company's liability ought to have been limited to the extent of Rs. 150000/- only.

4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal. FA/1006/1997 JUDGMENT

5.0 I have heard the learned Advocates and perused the relevant documents on record. In the written statement filed by the appellant- Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, it is admitted that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 150000/- as per policy and M.V. Act. In the present case, the claimant was traveling in tractor- trailer. As per clause (a) of section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the liability of the insurance company would be Rs. 150000/-. Section 95(2)(a) reads as under: (a)1[ where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of 4[ 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), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;]

6.0 In view of the above, the liability of the Insurance Company is to the extent of Rs. 150000/-.