9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The said appeal was dismissed. This petition is filed under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. 2. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioner up to a limit of Rs. 75,000 under Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(2) of the Act and that the further limit mentioned in Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. The relevant part of Section 95 of the Act during the relevant time read as follows: 95(2). Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to 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 (8 of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e legislature must be presumed to have intended what it had plainly said. But Clause (a) did not stand alone and was not the only provision to be considered for determining the outside limit of the insurer's liability. It was necessary to give effect to the words 'any one accident' which formed part in the opening part of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. The Court, therefore, held that if more than one person was injured during the course of the same transaction each one of the persons must be deemed to have met with an accident. Accordingly, the Court held that each of the persons who was entitled to claim compensation under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 50,000 which was the limit prescribed by the said clause on the date on which the accident, referred to in that case, occurred. The Court, however, distinguished the decision of this Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. [1971] Supp. SCR 20 which was a case in which Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act had arisen for consideration. In doing so the Court observed thus: The judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carry not more than thirty passengers, at Rs. 75,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers and at Rs. 1,00,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than sixty passengers. The said sub-clause proceeded to lay down the other limit in respect of each passenger by providing that subject to the limits aforesaid as regards the aggregate liability, the liability extended up to Rs. 10,000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000 for each individual passenger in any other case. Neither of the two limits can be ignored. In the present case the vehicle in question being a bus carrying passengers for hire or reward registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers the limit of the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident was Rs. 75,000 and subject to the said limit the liability in respect of each individual passenger was Rs. 5,000. We find it difficult to hold that the limit prescribed in Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) was only the minimum liability prescribed by law. The amount mentioned in that provision provides the maximum amount payable by an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upta and Ors. etc. [1977] 2 SCR 944 . In that case also the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident was a bus carrying passengers on a route in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court followed the decision in the case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Trans port Insurance Co., (supra) and limited the liability of the insurer to Rs. 2,000 as provided by the Act at that time. The Court found itself in complete agreement with the observations made by the Kerala High Court in P.B. Kader and Ors. v. Thatchamma and Ors., AIR 1970 Ker 241, and approved the following observations made by the Kerala High Court: It is sad that an Indian life should be so devalued by an Indian law as to cost only Rs. 2,000, apart from the fact that the value of the Indian rupee has been eroded and Indian life has become dearer since the time the statute was enacted, and the consciousness of the comforts and amenities of life in the Indian community has arisen, it would have been quite appropriate to revise this fossil figure of Rs. 2,000 per individual, involved in an accident, to make it more realistic and humane, but that is a matter for the legislature; and the observation that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... happens to choose a conveyance of a lesser value like a motor vehicle? Such an invidious distinction is absolutely shocking to any judicial or social conscience and yet Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act seems to suggest such a distinction. We hope and trust that our law-makers will give serious attention to this aspect of the matter and remove this serious lacuna in Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. These observations were quoted with approval by this Court in the course of its judgment in Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors., (supra) and while doing so the Court observed that the above observations were still languishing in the cold, storage of pious wishes. Immediately after the decision in the Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors. (supra) Parliament took steps to amend Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95(2) of the Act by Act 47 of 1982. After the said amendment Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95(2) of the Act reads thus: 95(2)(b). Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward of by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment- ... ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge number of public service vehicles carrying passengers are involved in them, we are of the view that the limit of Rs. 15,000 fixed in the case of each passenger appears to be still meagre and we hope that Parliament while enacting the Bill into law would take steps to increase the insurer's liability keeping in view the need for providing for adequate compensation as a measure of social security. 11. We should at this stage state that the High Court of Madras in K.R. Sivagami, Proprietor, Rajendran Tourist v. Mahaboob Nisa Bi and Ors. [1981] ACJ 339 has taken the same view as regards the effect of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1982. It has observed that the said provision specifically provided for two limitations on the liability of the insurer in respect of an accident in which a vehicle carrying passengers was involved, the first limitation being the limitation contained in Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) which provided that for the aggregate liability of the insurer in an accident and the second limitation being the one contained in Sub-clause (4) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) which provided that subject to the limits a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cases, insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks and Claims Tribunals. Sections 140, 147, 161 and 166 in the Motor Vehicles Bill No. 56 of 1987 correspond to Sections 92A, 95, 109A and 110A of the present Act. The Bill does not propose to introduce any change in Sections 140, 147, 161 and 166 of the Bill from what the law is today. They are almost identical with the existing provisions. In Section 140 of the Bill which corresponds to Section 92A of the Act the liability to pay compensation in the case of death of any person or in the case of permanent disablement of any person is proposed to be retained at Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 7,500 respectively in the same way in which the law stands today. Having regard to the inflationary pressures and the consequent loss of purchasing power of the rupee we feel that the amount of Rs. 15,000 and the amount of Rs. 7,500 in the above provisions appear to have become unrealistic. We, therefore, suggest that the limits of compensation in respect of death and in respect of permanent disablement, payable in the event of there being no proof of fault, should be raised adequately to meet the current situation. Section 147 in the Bill corres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
