9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who receive injuries or die in road or train accidents. The victims of road accidents or their dependents are driven to wage a long and unequal battle against the Insurance Companies, which deny their liability on every conceivable ground and indulge in an ingenious variety of factual disputations from 'who was driving the vehicle' to 'whose negligence was the sine qua non of the accident'. The delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, takes the sting out of the laws of compensation because, an infant child who seeks compensation as a dependent of his deceased father has often to await the attainment of majority in order to see the colour of the money. Add to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of the rupee: Compensation demanded say, ten years ago, is less than quarter of its value when it is received today. We do hope that the Government will apply itself seriously and urgently to this problem and find a satisfactory method of ameliorating the woes of victims of road accidents. 2. We have just talked of delay and it is just as well that we begin by saying that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 defines certain terms while Section 94(1) provides for the necessity to insure a vehicle against third party risks. By that section, no person can use a motor vehicle in a public place, except as a passenger, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of the chapter. Section 95 prescribes the requirements of the insurance policy and the limits of liability thereunder. Broadly, by Sub-section (1) of Section 95, a policy of insurance must insure the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The proviso to Sub-section (1) consists of three clauses by which, speaking generally, a policy is not required to cover (i) liability in respect of the death of or injuries to an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment; (ii) liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons carried in the vehicle except where the vehicle is used for carrying passeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t touched by the 1956 Amendment. 9. Section 95(2) underwent a further amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 56 of 1969, which came into force on March 2, 1970. As a result of that amendment, the section reads thus: (2) -Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely: (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 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; (b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment- (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers: (1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty passengers; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplies to vehicles in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Under that clause as it stood originally in 1939, the liability was restricted to twenty thousand rupees in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward; and to twenty thousand rupees in all in respect of passengers. The Amendment Act of 1956 did not make any change in Clause (b). But, the Amendment Act of 1969 enhanced the liability to the limit of fifty thousand rupees in all in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward. In respect of passengers, the liability was enhanced from twenty thousand rupees to fifty thousand rupees in all, seventy-five thousand rupees in all one lakh rupees in all, depending upon the registered capacity of the vehicle to carry passengers. 13. It may be recalled that the High Court awarded compensation in the sum of ₹ 19,125 to respondents 1 (a) to 1 (g) who are the heirs and legal representatives of Ajit Sinh who was driving the car, and ₹ 10,000 to Jadavji Modi who was travelling in the car. The total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hardship to the heirs ensuing upon the loss of lives of those who perished in the collision. But there is a more flagrant injustice which one shall have to countenance if one were to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and it is this: If two persons of unequal economic status die in the kind of collision mentioned above, the heirs of the affluent victim will virtually monopolise the compensation by getting a lion's share in it, thereby adding insult to the injury caused to the heirs of the indigent victim. The purpose of law is to alleviate, not augment, the sufferings of the people. It is well-known that the award of compensation depends upon a variety of factors, including the extent of monetary deprivation to which the heirs of the deceased are subjected. Applying that criterion as one of the many variable criteria which are applied for fixing compensation in motor accident cases, the heirs of the affluent victim may have been awarded, say, a compensation of ₹ 90,000. The heirs of the other victim who may have been just managing to keep his body and soul together will probably have received by that standard a compensation of, say, ten thousand rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity by the use of the unambiguous expression in all and since that expression was specially introduced by an amendment, it must be allowed its full play. The legislature must be presumed to have intended what it has plainly said. But, Clause (a) does not stand alone and is not the only provision to be considered for determining the outside limit of the insurer's liability. In fact, Clause (a) does not even form a complete sentence and makes no meaning by itself. Like the other Clauses (b) to (d), Clause (a) is governed by the opening words of Section 95(2) to the effect that a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits , that is to say, the limits laid down in Clauses (a) to (d). We have supplied emphasis in order to focus attention on the true question which emerges for consideration: What is the meaning of the expression any one accident ? If that expression were plain and unambiguous, and its meaning clear and definite, effect would be required to be given to it regardless of what we think of its wisdom or policy. But as we will presently show, the expression any one accident does not disclose one me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture in the opening part of Section 95(2) and the doubt arising out of the co-relation of that language with the words in all which occur in Clause (a), must be resolved by having regard to the underlying legislative purpose of the provisions contained in chapter VIII of the Act which deals with third party risks. That is a sensitive process which has to accommodate the claims of the society as reflected in that purpose. Indeed, it is in this area of legislative ambiguities, unfortunately not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships. In the words of Judge Learned Hand: It is one of surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence...to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. Cabell v. Markham 148 F. 2d 737, 739 (1945). There is no table of logarithms to guide or govern statutory construction in this area, which leaves a sufficient and desirable discretion for the Judges to interpret laws in the light of their purpose, where the language used by the law-makers does not yield to one and one meaning only. Consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in respect of loss arising from any claim or claims which may be made upon him by reason of any neglect, omission or error committed in the conduct of his business, subject to a proviso that the liability of the insurers was not to exceed a sum of # 3000, in respect of any one claim or number of claims arising out of the same occurrence . The Solicitor's assistant gave a certain advice in a motor accident case which betrayed negligence. The assistant had wrongly allowed a person to become administratrix of her late husband's estate and the assistant also failed to issue writs the six-month limitation period. A claim was made against the Solicitor for his assistant's negligence for depriving the claimants of their right to be paid damages. The court assessed the quantum of damages differently for different claimants, which together exceeded the sum of # 3000. It was held that the Solicitor's assistant was negligent twice and therefore there were two occurrences in the same case in respect of which the Solicitor became liable to pay damages for negligence. Accordingly, the insurance company was held liable to indemnify the Solicitor in respect of the damages awarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not touch the question before us. Similarly, in the case before the Orissa High Court in Sabita Pali, only one person was involved in the collision between a jeep and a goods vehicle. Relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, the Orissa High Court held that the liability of the Insurance company was limited to rupees twenty thousand under Section 95(2)(a) of the Act. The involvement of more than one person in a single occurrence raises a different question for consideration under Section 95(2)(a) than the involvement of a single person in a single occurrence. In the latter case, it may be true to say that the liability of the insurer is limited to rupees twenty thousand under a statutory policy. In the former, the interpretation of the words any one accident came into play and we have already expressed our view on the meaning of those words. 24. In the case before the Karnataka High Court in Sanjiva Shelly, a taxi and a car met with a collision, as a result of which two persons travelling in the taxi, the driver of the car and a boy called Bharatisha sitting on the roadside were injured. Before the High Court was the claim of the driver of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an individual passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, or two thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver. A passenger bus was involved in an occurrence in which two passengers were killed. The High Court held that the straightforward course was to take the language of the Act as it stood, which left no doubt that in the case of a bus registered for carrying more than six passengers, the limit of the liability was twenty thousand rupees in all and there was a further limit in respect of each individual passenger in the sum of two thousand rupees. The words any one accident' in the opening part of Section 95(2) made no difference to this interpretation because, if more than one passenger was injured in a single occurrence, no one passenger was entitled to receive more than rupees two thousand or four thousand, depending on the registered capacity of the vehicle to carry passengers. 26. The judgment of the Punjab High Court was brought in appeal to this Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reasonable amounts of compensation, without contest, to victims of road accidents. We find that road accidents involving passengers travelling by rail or public buses are usually followed by an official announcement of payment of ex gratia sums to victims, varying between five hundred and two thousand rupees or so. That is a niggardly recognition of the State's obligation to its people particularly so when the frequency of accidents involving the public transport system has increased beyond believable limits. The newspaper reports of August and September 1981 regarding deaths and injuries caused in such accidents have a sorry story to tell. But we need not reproduce figures depending upon newspaper assessment because, the newspapers of September 18, 1981 carry the report of a statement made by the Union Minister of State for Shipping and Transport before the North Zone goods transport operators ...that 20,000 persons were killed and 1.5 lakh were injured in highway accidents during 1980. We wonder whether adequate compensation was paid to this large mass of suffering humanity. In any event, the need to provide by law for the payment of adequate compensation without contest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervations of the highest Court of the country do not become a mere pious wish. (per Fazal Ali J, pp. 945, 946, 950, 951). These observations are still languishing in the cold storage of pious wishes. With the emergence of the General Insurance Corporation which has taken over general insurance business of all kinds, including motor vehicles insurance, it should be easy to give statutory recognition to the State's obligation to compensate victims of road-accidents promptly, adequately and without contest. 29. We are happy to note that the Gujarat High Court, by its judgment under appeal, took a just, correct and realistic view of the matter by holding that, under the statutory policy, the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the full amount of compensation to the heirs of the driver of the car and to the passenger who was travelling in the car, each amount being less than ₹ 20,000. 30. In the result the appeals are dismissed with costs in separate sets in favour of respondents 1 (a) to 1 (g) who are the heirs of the deceased Ajit Sinh and in favour of respondents 3 to 6 who are the heirs of Jadavji Keshavji Modi since deceased. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
