O F AND G INSURANCE CO SHIMLA Vs. CHITRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company praying that the liability of the appellant be limited to Rs. 15,000/- only. In order to determine this point, a few facts relevant to the case may be stated. On December 17, 1976, Rajesh Gupta the husband of respondent 1 was travelling in the ill-fated jeep owned by respondents 3 and 4. The deceased was returning from Subathu after attending to some official work there. The deceased was at that time working as Assistant Commissioner at Solan and the ill-fated jeep was requisitioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for the official use of the deceased. The jeep was driven by the driver of respondent 3. The said jeep met with an accident allegedly due to rash and negligent driving. Shri Rajesh Gupta died in the said accident. The claim petition was filed by respondent 1 against respondents 2 to 4, and the appellant. The Claim Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to respondent 1, besides interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the recovery. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has not made any apportionment of the liability to be shouldered by the appellant and respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) The only point which has been stressed on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is that the liability of the appellant is limited to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to the Insurance Policy (RW. 2/A). It is contended by him that in terms of the said policy, the liability of the appellant is limited only to Rs. 15,000/-. Mr. Deepak Gupta has also referred to a decision in Pushpabai Purshottam v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1977 Acc. CJ. 343 . This is a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on March 25, 1977. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts of the present case are the same as that of the case mentioned above. The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in the aforesaid case according to him are also identical to the present case. The relevant clause of the policy has been reproduced in para 23 of the aforesaid judgment. The same is reproduced hereinunder for a ready reference :

(3.) Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that the appellant is only liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent 1, besides interest accruing thereon and the costs. Such a conclusion on the basis of the above decision of the Supreme Court is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents as well.