NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED NEW DELHI Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, against a judgment of the Delhi High Court in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) NECESSARY facts may be stated herein in a nutshell. Shri Jugal Kishore, Respondent No. 1 was, on 15/06/1969, driving a three-wheeler scooter when he met with an accident with bus No. DLP-3699, driven by Shri Rai Singh, Respondent No. 2 and owned by M/s. Delhi Janata Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Respondent No. 3. He sustained injuries consequent upon which he made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi against Respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant which was the insurer of the bus aforesaid. The claim of Respondent No. 1 was contested by the appellant and also by Respondent No. 3 but proceeded ex parte against Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 recoverable jointly and severally from the appellant and Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi and asserted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. His appeal was allowed by the High Court and the award was modified. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as compensation to Respondent No. 1 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim till realisation with costs against the driver as well as the owner of the bus as also against the appellant, Insurance Company.

(3.) ON the plain language of the aforesaid clause (b) which applies to the instant case it is apparent that the liability of the appellant could not be in excess of Rs. 20,000.00. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that notwithstanding the provision contained in this behalf in clause (b) aforesaid it was open to the insurer to take a policy covering a higher risk than contemplated by the aforesaid clause (b) and consequently the said clause had to be read subject to the terms of the policy which was taken in the instant case. We find substance in this submission in view of the decision of this Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977 Acc CJ 343 : (AIR 1977 SC 1735), where it was held that the insurer can always take policies covering risks which are not covered by the requirements of Section 95 of the Act.