Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Pramod Mishra And Others on 1 April, 1988
Author: S Wad
Bench: S Wad
JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by an insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Rs. 3,49,792. The only question raised in this appeal is that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000. It is an admitted fact that no written statement was filed on behalf of the insurance company before the Tribunal, taking the plea of their limited liability. A copy of the insurance policy was, however, procedure. The copy shows that the liability of thee insurance company is unlimited. One Mr. Yogesh Chand Gupta, an assistant in the insurance company, appeared as witness PW-6. He stated that the insurance policy shows that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, but he also accepted in the cross-examination that no extra premium was charged in this policy. The insurance company also produced a witness in this regard. He is Mr. Madhusudan Pillai, RW-1. He was working as an assistant administrative officer at that time. He also stated that no extra premium was charged. As regards the unlimited liability of the policy, he stated that it is some typing mistake. He further stated that no notice has been issued to the owner for correcting this mistake. He then stated that he joined the office only in 1983 while the policy was taken out in 1978 and that Shri Yogesh Chand Gupta, PW-6, knows generally about the policies.
2. Counsel for the insurance company tried to argue that since the liability arises out of a contract between the parties where no additional premium has been charged, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company for the amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. In order to satisfy myself as to what is the practice of the insurance company in regard to unlimited liability policies, I had called for the original register. It is seen that in case of a number of policies, the insurance company has covered unlimited liability without charging any additional premium. In this state of evidence before me, I have no alternative, but to reject the contention raised by the insurance company and dismiss the appeal.
3. It has been noticed in some cases that the entries on the policy, the production of the policies in the courts and taking of relevant pleas in the written statement, are being done in a mere casual and routine manner. This appears to be one of such cases. The appellant insurance company, now a public corporation, is accountable to general public apart from the policyholders. Therefore, at the highest level in the insurance company, a more positive awareness of these requirements is necessary and proper instructions should be given to counsel appearing for the insurance company in this regard. It is also necessary that particularly the column regarding liability is filled under the personal supervision of a very senior officer as it is not unlikely that a mischief or mistake might take place at the hands of the employees not so responsible or not so experienced.
4. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. A sum of Rs. 50,000 has already been paid by the insurance company. The insurance company should pay another Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the claimant and the balance award amount of Rs. 1,49,792 should be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank for a period of three years in the name of the claimant as directed by the Tribunal. This should be done within one month from today.
