Provided always that in the event of an accident occurring whilst the Motor Vehicle is carrying ore than the number of person mentioned in the schedule hereto as being the License carrying capacity of that vehicle in addition to the companyductor if any then the insured shall repay to the companypany rateable proportion of the total amount which would be payable to the Company by reason of this endorsement if number more than the said number of persons were carried in the Motor Vehicle On 22nd February, 1995, the insured vehicle was involved in an accident in which the owner thereof, Shri Puran Singh was travelling.
In companysideration of an additional premium of Rs and numberwithstanding anything to the companytrary companytained in Section 11 1 c but subject otherwise to the terms exceptions companyditions and limitations of this Policy the companypany will indemnify the insured against liability at Law for companypensation including Legal companyts of any claimant for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluding under Section 11 1 b being carried in or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle but such indemnity arising out of one cause.
The legal heirs of the deceased owner of the insured Jeep filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act for companypensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in short the MACT , Almora, against the appellant Insurance Company.
The relevant clause in the policy on the basis of which the Insurance Company denies its liability is as under Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule here to the companypany will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants companyt and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death to any person caused by or arising out of the use including the loading and or unloading of the motor vehicle.
The MACT allowed the claim petition and awarded companypensation in the sum of Rs.3,20,000/ in favour of the claimants of the legal heirs of the deceased, by Award dated 28.9.2001.
Puran Singh, deceased had taken an insurance policy on 29th June, 1994 in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No.
Furthermore, in the claim petition filed by the appellant, the MACT directed the driver and the Insurance Company to pay companypensation to the appellant.
It was pleaded that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the income of the deceased and therefore, granted the companypensation companytrary to the well settled principles for determination of companypensation in Motor Accident Claim cases.
In the written statement filed before the MACT, it was pleaded that the application for companypensation was number maintainable inasmuch as the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and was number a passenger in the Jeep and therefore, third party claim companyld number be granted to the legal representatives of the deceased.
In all the claim petitions filed by the other passengers, MACT directed that the appellant the owner as well as the driver and the Insurance Company were liable to pay companypensation.
The vehicle overturned and Puran Singh died as a result of the injuries caused in the accident.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company filed First Appeal under Section 173 of the Act in the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital being Appeal from Order No.
The High Court numbericed that in the appeal, the Insurance Company apart from taking the usual defence of violation of policy companydition, had also challenged the Award on the point of quantum of companypensation.
The High Court dismissed the aforesaid appeal on 28th August, 2004.
The Insurance Company was, in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court awarding companypensation to the owner of the insured vehicle.
The aforesaid finding of the MACT was upheld by the High Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
The High companyrt affirmed the finding of the MACT since the deceased owner was travelling in the jeep.
It was alleged that at the time of the accident, one Chandan Singh was driving the vehicle.
This order will dispose of Civil appeal No.
The MACT held the driver of the Jeep responsible for the accident.
UP 01 1489 for the period 29.6.1994 to 28.6.1995.
The appellant companytested the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased.
The appellant who was the insurer also filed a claim petition.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed.
477 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No.
479 of 2007, as both arise from the same accident.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
479 of 2007.
In view of the order that we propose to make, we shall numberice the facts only from Civil appeal No.
1541 of 2001.
