High Court held Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 does not limit third party claims against an insurer's vehicle. The Court allowed a widow's cross appeal, enhancing compensation to Rs.6,40,000/-. The appeal by the insurer was dismissed.
Cross appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.6,40,000/-; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cross Objection No.16-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.715 of 1991 Date of decision:27.08.2010
United India Insurance Company
....Appellant
versus
Usha Goyal and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
Cross Objection No.16-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.715 of 1991 - 2 -
of the MV Act of 1939 was only in relation to a claim in respect of anyone accident in a goods carriage or a vehicle in which passengers were being taken. This Section 95(2) did not operate to create any restriction of liability for a claim by a third party against an insurer's vehicle. A reliance placed by the learned counsel on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Puja Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited and others-2006 ACJ 721
does not therefore apply.
Cross Objection No.16-CII of 1992 in/and FAO No.715 of 1991 - 3 -
scope for future increases in salary as contemplated by the law at that time in GM, Kerala SRTC Versus Susamma Thomas-(1994) 2 SCC 176 . For a person, who was aged 27 years, a minimum of 50% increase must have been provided for the same. If an increase in salary were also to be factored and if the multiplier of 18 had been adopted, the amount that would have been payable in excess would be Rs.6,40,000/-. The cross appeal is for retention of the amount as Rs.6,40,000/- which was determined by the Tribunal and, therefore, I am of the view that Rs.6,40,000/- would be just and adequate compensation. The cross appeal is allowed. The apportionment of the amount as determined by the Tribunal shall be retained. Since the accident took place in the year 1989 whatever amount has not been paid so far, by virtue of the pendency of the appeal, the same shall be paid with interest in the manner provided by the Tribunal to the claimants. The appeal is dismissed and the cross appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
27.08.2010 sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 limits liability for third party claims against an insurer's vehicle.
Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting a multiplier of 20 and failing to factor future salary increases to determine just compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Puja Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited and othersDistinguished¶20
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Puja Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited and others-2006 ACJ 721
GM, Kerala SRTC Versus Susamma ThomasApplied¶23
GM, Kerala SRTC Versus Susamma Thomas-(1994) 2 SCC 176 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Company
Usha Goyal
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
