Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Sukhbir Singh (Minor) and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2011FAO/1083/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two appeals arising from the same bus accident. The insurer's appeal was allowed, limiting liability to ₹50,000 under Statutory Road Accident Scheme terms, while the owner's appeal was dismissed, affirming the finding of negligence and quantum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by insurer allowed; liability limited to ₹50,000 with interest. Appeal by owner dismissed affirming negligence and quantum.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhbir Singh… — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No. 1083 of 1991

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 1083 of 1991 Date of decision January 19, 2011

¶5

National Insurance Company Limited

¶6

....... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sukhbir Singh and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

FAO No.1069 of 1991

¶11

Haryana State Electricity Board

¶12

....... Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Sukhbir Singh and others

¶15

........Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶17

Present:Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶18

None for the respondents.

¶19

¶20

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶21

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶22

Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. FAO No. 1083 of 1991 is at the instance of the insurer challenging the quantum, negligence and liability. FAO No. 1069 of 1991 is at the instance of the owner denying the issue of negligence as has been found on the issue of quantum.

¶23

The Insurance Company did not have the benefit of defence under Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and

¶24

¶25

FAO No. 1083 of 1991

¶26

therefore there is no scope for examining the contention regarding quantum or negligence. As regards the contention of the insurer regarding restriction of liability, the accident had taken place on 16.12.1988. The terms of policy brought through the policy of insurance filed in Court as Ex.R-1 states that the liability shall be as per the requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The vehicle involved in the accident is a bus and the person injured was a cyclist. The liability for a person other than a passenger for the insurer of a passenger vehicle is covered by Section 95 (2) (b)(i) restricts the liability to a limit of 50,000/- in all. The Insurance Company under the circumstances could not have been made liable for the entire compensation of 83,800/- as determined by the Tribunal.

¶27

The appeal by the Insurance Company i.e. FAO No.1083 of 1991 is therefore allowed making it liable for `50,000/- with interest as awarded and the amount in excess shall be payable only by the owner and driver of the bus involved in the accident. The appeal by the owner in FAO No. 1069 of 1991 is dismissed affirming the issue of negligence and quantum as already determined by the Tribunal. The cross objection filed by the claimant is also dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶28

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶29

January 19, 2011 archana

National Insurance Company Limited v. Sukhbir Singh (Minor) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Sukhbir Singh (Minor) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kumar Vs Pardeep Kumar

Bachan Singh Vs Mrs.Surjit Kaur and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kharati etc.

Sarup Singh Tharan Vs Ramesh Chandra and Anr.

Charan Dass and Another Vs Satwinder Singh and Others

Smt.Maya Devi and Anr. Vs Mohan Singh and Anr.