Bachan Singh v. Smt. Surjit Kaur & Ors.

Smt. Surjit Kaur and others Versus ....... Appellant ........Respondents FAO No.436 of 1988 Versus ....... Appellant ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 and 6. Mr. Sandeep Suri , Advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company.

2. 3. **** Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No To be referred to the reporters or not? No Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral).

The appeal is by the claimant seeking for unlimited cover for liability arising out of the act of the driver causing an accident and that gave place to a claim for compensation for death. The Insurance Company had filed the policy as Ex. R-1 and contended that the liability was restricted for third parties under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 FAO No. 435 of 1988 FAO No.436 of 1988 2 and the amount of claim in excess of Rs.1,50,000/- ought to be borne by the owner of the vehicle himself. This was contested by the appellant on the ground that an additional premium had been paid for unlimited liability to the third party and the payment of Rs.48/- was only an unlimited liability for a third party. I have examined the policy, and having regard to the doubt expressed by the recitals filled up in the policy. I had also directed the Manager of the Insurance Company to be summoned and examined as RW-2. He has spoken to the tariff with reference to the instructions issued by the TAC and with particular reference to the guidelines issued on the basis of TAC instructions. The unlimited liability, that is spelt out in para 11 of the guidelines refers to liability to the public risk and for a goods carrying vehicle, and for covering the risk to a personal injury to an unlimited extent, the premium payable is Rs.100/-. The premium which has been calculated is Rs.48/- which is entered against “the limit of any one accident for 6 + 2 persons” and an additional amount of Rs.16/- has been calculated “for driver and cleaner as per endorsement 16” for liability for personal injuries to the driver or cleaner.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would still contend that a payment made for 6 + 2 at Rs.48/- must be inclusive of the risk to a driver and cleaner and Rs.16/- must have been only for the unlimited TP. I cannot accept such a contention for a premium could not have been calculated against the TAC formulations and I am not persuaded to accept the contention that Rs.16/- was for unlimited liability. Learned counsel points out that in the copy of policy which was certified to the party 16 had been entered against the column unlimited liability. I cannot again accede to such a contention. The document which was exhibited by the insurer before Court as Ex. R-1 makes an entry to Rs.16/- against the column “additional premium to be paid to the driver and/or FAO No. 435 of 1988 FAO No.436 of 1988 3 cleaner as it was endorsement IMT 16” and Rs.48/- had been received against the column, “limited to any one accident in printed form and letters 6 + 2 are hand written against the entry of premium of Rs.48/-. The manner in which the entries are made in Exhibit R-1 leaves no doubt in me that the premium was collected only for covering the risk to the driver and cleaner as well as to the workmen entitled to be covered in the Workmen's Compensation Act and no premium has been paid for covering unlimited risk to any third party. The restriction of liability to the insurer at Rs.1,50,000/- was therefore, justified and the amount in excess is to be borne by the owner/insured. The appeals filed by the owner seeking for unlimited cover are dismissed. January 18, 2011 archana (K. KANNAN) JUDGE