- (1.) LIST revised. No one appears for the contesting respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.03.1998 passed by M.A.C.T./ A.D.J.-V, Bareilly in Misc. Case No.NIL of 1998, Gopal Jaiswal Vs. Bilayati Rai through which review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review and recall of order dated 17.01.1998 passed in Case No.29 of 1994 was rejected. Under the award dated 17.01.1998 out of the awarded amount of Rs.2,30,400.00 an amount of Rs.50,000.00 was directed to be paid by the insurance company i.e. respondent No.8, National Insurance Company. Petitioner is vehicle owner. The Tribunal below in its order dated 17.01.1998 under issue No.5 holding that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.50,000.00 placed reliance upon certified copy of insurance policy which was filed by the vehicle owner applicant himself and it was numbered as Paper No.62-kha. The liability was limited to Rs.50,000.00.
(2.) THE ground of review was that it was an inadvertent error as certified copy of insurance policy filed by the applicant which was numbered as 62-kha related to the period from 30.01.1983 to 29.01.1984 while accident had taken place eight days afterwards i.e. 06.02.1984. In the review petition the certified copy of the insurance policy for the relevant period i.e. 30.01.1984 to 29.01.1952 was not filed by the applicant petitioner. The case of the petitioner applicant in the review petition was that Section 95(2)(a) of Motor Vehicle Act 1939 before it was amended through Act No.47 of 1982, limited the liability of the insurance company to Rs.50,000.00 however through the amendment the liability was increased to Rs.1,50,000.00. Amendment was made effective from 01.10.1982. In para-7 of the review petition copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition it is mentioned that by virtue of amendment of Section 95(2)(a) w.e.f. 01.10.1982, the liability of insurance company was to the extent of Rs.1,50,000.00. In para-9 it was stated that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited as they had charged extra premium for this in accordance with the amended section. It was not stated in the review petition that how much extra amount had been paid by the applicant and on what date. The plea of unlimited liability of the insurance company had been taken in para 10 A.M. the written statement filed by the petitioner applicant vehicle owner in the main claim petition. However this point (payment of extra premium of Rs.100.00) was argued before the Tribunal below in the review petition. No evidence was filed before the Tribunal below in the review petition to show that extra amount of Rs.100.00 had been paid. In para-16 of this writ petition, it is mentioned that Annexure-6 to the writ petition is copy of the policy which had been renewed from 30.01.1984 to 29.01.1985. There is no allegation that Annexure-6 was filed before the Tribunal below in review petition. Para- 16 starts as follows "That similarly the petitioner also."
(3.) THEREAFTER , the words "placed on record the true copy of the policy number" were typed, however alphabet 'd' was changed by pen and now the words read as 'places or record'. Annexure-6 is not complete policy. It is only Renewal Endorsement. It does not say that liability is unlimited. It is merely renewal and receipt of payment, hence all other conditions of previous policy would apply, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition and which was filed by the petitioner himself in the main claim case. In the said policy it is categorically mentioned that the liability is confined to Rs.50,000.00. In annexure-6 at the bottom the split of the entire amount paid has been mentioned and at serial No.(e) Rs.100.00 is mentioned. From this it cannot be inferred that, that was towards extra premium and liability of the insurance company was unlimited. There is not a single word in Annexure-6 regarding unlimited liability. In any case this document was neither filed during pendency of the main claim petition nor in the review petition. There was no allegation in the review petition that why the said document could not be filed until the decision of the main case.;