KISHAN SARUP THAPER Vs. LAKHBIR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Kishan Sarup Thapar, advocate of Chandigarh, was engaged by Mr. Amrit Lal Sood in a case pending in the High Court at Simla. The date of hearing was Augsut 25, 1970. Mr. Amrit Lal borrowed Car No. DLE 5220 from his brother in law, Mr. Lakhbir Sood, for going to Simla. He took Mr. Thapar and proceeded to Simla. The car was being driven by Mr. Amrit Lal. At 7.05 a.m. the car met with an accident with truck No. HRA 606 near post office at Kandaghat. Mr. Thapar was injured and was removed to Snowdon Hospital, Simla. He was found to have fractured his right shoulder and left hip bone. He remained in the hospital till August 31, 1970. Thereafter, he was removed to Chandigarh in an ambulance and had to remain in bed till 4th or 5th October, 1970. The doctor was of the opinion that Mr. Thapar would lead a stiff shoulder as its movements in extreme degrees would not be possible. The hip injury, according to the doctor, should lead to osteoarthritis of the. hip joint leading to pain and restricted movement. Mr. Thapar says that he cannot lift any weight. He cannot even lift his grandchildren. The leg injury interferes with his profession since he cannot travel outside Chandigrah without an escort. He claimed Rs. 36,000 at the rate of Rs. 300 per month for a period of ten years in respect of loss of earning capacity. Rs. 1,000 were claimed as medical expenses and Rs. 2,000 for the two months for which he was confined to bed. He claimed Rs. 84,000 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for a period of 14 years on account of loss of pleasures of life and permanent incapacity in using right arm due to stiffness of shoulder. Rs. 2,000 were claimed for suffering for about nine weeks. Thus, a "total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 was claimed. He, however, stated in September, 1975, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that he was working and attending to his normal work as an advocate in the High Court though for the first three years after the accident he could not do so.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the accident was due to the negligence of Mr. Amrit Lal. Mr. Thapar claimed compensation from Mr. Lakhbir Sood, owner of the car, Mr. Amrit Lal, who was driving the car and the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the car was insured, and others. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,800 as compensation as well as interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from the date of award till payment. It awarded Rs. 10,800 for the loss suffered by him of his professional income ; Rs. 2,000 for physical suffering for about nine weeks ; a sum of Rs. 2,000 for the loss of income for two months ; and a sum of Rs. 1,000 for medical expenses.

(3.) MR . R. M. Suri, learned counsel for the insurance company, contends that the policy does not cover the risks of injury to a passenger. Now, it is Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to as " the Act") which prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless the vehicle is insured. Section 95 of the Act lays down the requirements of the policies of insurance and the limits of liability. The relevant part of this section reads I