GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties and perused lower Court records. This appeal was preferred under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by the insurance company against judgment and award dated 31.1.1992 passed in Compensation Case No. 166 of 1989. On 4.9.1989 a bus (BHV -8546) knocked one Md. Sahid Kuresi causing multiple injuries to him, which resulted into his death on the spot. Parents of the deceased along with his widow and three minor filed a case for compensation under the aforesaid Act. Both owner as well as insurer of the bus filed written statement but only the insurer contested the case. Insurers defence, inter alia, was that unless it was proved that bus was being plied in accordance with law and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, insurer was not responsible to indemnify owners liability. Order dated 13.1.1992 of the compensation case shows that both sides filed documents. Claimants documents were marked Exts. 1 to 5 and document filed by insurance company was marked Ext. A. On perusal of the records, I find that a true copy (duplicate) of the insurance policy in question was brought on record on behalf of insurance company and was marked Ext. A on 13.1.1992.
(2.) IT appears that inadvertently under a bona fide impression that insurance policy of the bus involved in the accident in question was not brought on record, as the owner of the .vehicle after filing written statement did not contest the case, a petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in the present appeal for admitting the Insurance policy as additional evidence. This Court considered the said petition on 8.5.1998 when the appeal was being heard under Order XLI, Rule 11 of Code and rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the said order and the appeal was also dismissed. The Insurance Company, in the instant appeal, had taken the main ground that notwithstanding that accident took place on 4.9.1989, i.e., after coming into force of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In terms of insurance policy it was liable to discharge only statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/ - under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. but under the impression that insurance policy itself was not brought on record, this Court without considering appellants claim under Section 95(2)(b)(i) dismissed the appeal.
(3.) AS soon as it was detected that insurance policy was already brought on record in the compensation case and was also marked Exhibit the insurance company filed Civil Review No. 52 of 1996, which was allowed on 18.4.2001 after hearing the insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle and part of order dated 8.5.1995. passed in this appeal, whereby the appeal was dismissed, was recalled and that is why the present appeal has again been put up under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is being disposed of with consent of parties at this very stage. It was established before the tribunal that accident took place on account of rash and negligent drive of the bus, where by deceased, who was waiting for auto -rickshaw, was dashed and died on the spot. On the basis of materials brought on record, tribunal assessed annual dependency at Rs. 9,000/ - and applied 16 multiplier and thereby calculated total amount of compensation at Rs. 1,44,000/ - and also granted interest 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till payment. I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid amount of compensation granted by the tribunal.;