Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Mohinder Kaur And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1178 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August, 1986 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') in Suit No. 138/1979, whereby the learned Tribunal has held the insurance company liable to pay the entire awarded amount while turning down the contention of the insurance company that it had a limited liability restricted to act-only.

2. The question that arises before me is whether the insurance policy in this particular case Ex.R3W1/1 is one that limits the liability of the insurance company to the act only or is it unlimited. For this purpose, I hardly need to set down the facts of the case or to go into any aspect other than the one raised before me.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant/insurance company that bare perusal of the policy shows that a basic premium of Rs. 496/- together with half per cent IEV Rs. 270/- has been paid. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 135/- to cover riot and strike and Rs. 16/- to cover wider legal liability has also been paid. The policy shows that basic premium is Rs. 496/-, the same should be read as limiting the liability to the act only.

4. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the premium for act only liability according to the tariff is Rs. 65/-. The premium paid is Rs. 496/-, in which event the liability of the insurance company becomes much more than minimum under the act only policy.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. The Tribunal while dealing with this question has returned a finding that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy and covers all liabilities inasmuch as RW-3 O.K. Bhalla, Branch Manager, who produced on record a copy of the insurance policy has deposed that the policy was issued in favor of Uniter Commercial Bank, New Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and is valid with effect from 3.10.1977 to 2.8.1978. He further deposed that the liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/- only. However, in the cross-examination this witness deposed that the policy is a comprehensive policy including risk of riot, strike and wider liability including driver and cleaner. On the basis of evaluation of evidence on record, in particular the policy Ex.R3W1/1, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the policy in question is a comprehensive policy, whereby the insurance company is liable to pay the awarded amount.

6. I have carefully considered the matter and noticed the policy in question. On perusal of the same, it appears that a basic premium of Rs. 496/- has been paid and in addition thereto Rs. 270/- on account of half percent IEV. Rs. 135/- paid to cover strike and riot and Rs. 16/- to cover wider legal liability which includes driver and cleaner. From the tariff which was produced by counsel for the insurance company pertaining to the period in question, it appears that the basic premium for act only liability is Rs. 65/- and anything above thereto has been shown under the heard ''Comprehensive Policy''. Since a higher premium than required for basic act only policy has been paid by the respondent and there is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid highest premium was limited to any particular amount, I see no reason why the liability of the insurance company should be limited. In this view of the matter, I uphold the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire awarded amount. FAO 51/1987 is accordingly dismissed. CMs 1674/1987, 3495/1987, 2463/1988, 710/1997, 1567/1997 and 867/2001 stand disposed of. The amount, if any, lying deposited in this court may be released to the claimant/claimants forthwith as per the Tribunal's directions.