The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shakuntla Birbal & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2750 Del

 *                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                         F.A.O. No.129 of 1996
%                                                                                 24.05.2010

         THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.               ...... Appellants
                             Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.

                                               Versus

         SHAKUNTLA BIRBAL & ORS.                                       ......Respondents
                             Through: None.
                                                                 Reserved on: 19th May, 2010
                                                               Pronounced on: 24th May, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                         JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company assailing award dated

25th January, 1996 on the issue of liability of the insurance company.

2. The learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with cost and

interest to the claimants and directed that the appellant shall make this payment to the

claimants. Regarding liability of the insurance company, following observations were

made by the Tribunal :-

"35. According to her testimony, at the time of preparation of the original Insurance Policy, three carbon copies were prepared concurrently in the same process. She stated that the original Policy was given to the Insured while one carbon copy each was sent to the Divisional Office and the Branch Office. According to her, the third copy of the policy was kept in the permanent Register. She had not brought the said permanent Register. She also could not say where the two copies of the Insurance Policy given to the Divisional Office and the Branch Office were. She admitted that the insurance Tariff kept on changing periodically. She stated that the Tariff Book brought by her was operative from

December 1, 1973 till 1988 and that thereafter revised Tariff came into operation. However, she had not brought anything to show that the Tariff in question continued till 1988.

36. According to her, „Liability to Public Risks‟ and „Act Only Liability‟ were equivalent phrases and they relate to Third Party Risks. In her opinion, there was no difference between the two expressions. After seeing the Tariff, she stated that the premium chargeable for a vehicle exceeding 5080 kgs. was Rs.84/- in respect of „Act Only Liability‟ and Rs.125/- in respect of liability to „Public Risks‟ in moffisil. She could not explain why there was difference of premium in the two categories."

3. Since in this case the premium for 'Act Only Liability' was Rs.84/- and the

premium paid by the insured was Rs.125/- which was in respect of 'Liability to Public

Risks', in view of judgment of this court in F.A.O. No. 257 of 1991 titled Neeta Trehan &

Ors. Vs. Gopal Krishan & Ors., decided on 17th May, 2010, I consider that liability of the

insurance company was not limited to Rs.50,000/- as is argued and the liability of the

insurance company was unlimited.

4. I find no force in the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

MAY 24, 2010 'AA'