ION Special Leave Petition Civil No 7534 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 411
1986 of the Kerala High Court in MFA No 64 of 1982
EMS Anam for the Petitioner
The Order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The petitioner was the owner of a bus bearing No KLD 9327 which was being run as a stage car riage
On 2471978 while the said bus was carrying passen gers it met with an accident and Saheeda who was one of the passengers in the bus died as a consequence of the said accident
The accident took place according to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle who had been employed by the petitioner
The Tribunal found that the compensation payable by the petitioner to the legal representatives of Saheeda was Rs56800
It however held that the liability of the insurer to indemnify the petitioner was limited to Rs5000 as the policy specifically limited the insurer s 1153 liability to what had been provided by section 952bii2 and 4 of herein after referred to as the Act 
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala
The said appeal was dismissed
This peti tion is filed under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court
The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioner upto a limit of Rs75000 under section 952bii2 of the Act and that the further limit mentioned in section 952bii4 of the Act was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner
The relevant part of section 95 of the Act during the relevant time read as follows 952
Subject to the proviso to sub section 1 a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits namely a where the vehicle is a goods vehicle a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all including the liabilities if any aris ing under the 8 of 1923 in respect of the death of or bodily injury to employees other than the driver not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle b where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment  i in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all ii in respect of passengers 1 a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers 2 a limit of seventy five thou sand rupees in all where the vehicle is regis tered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers 1154 3 a limit of one lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers and 4 subject to the limits aforesaid ten thousand rupees for each individual pas senger where the vehicle is a motor cab and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case c save as provided in clause d where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class the amount of liability incurred d irrespective of the class of the vehicle a limit of rupees two thousand in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party
Section 95 of the Act sets out the requirements of the policies of insurance which must be taken by the owners of motor vehicles and the limits of liabilities thereunder
A policy of insurance should subject to the proviso to sub section 1 of section 95 of the Act cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the limits specified in sub section 2 of section 95 of the Act
Clause a of section 952 of the Act during the relevant time provided that where the vehicle was a goods vehicle the policy should cover the liability upto Rs50000 in all including the liabilities if any arising under the Work men s Compensation Act 1923 in respect of death of or bodily injury to the workmen other than the driver not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle
This clause came up for consideration before this Court in Motor Owners Insurance Co Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi  Ors In that case this Court held that clause a of section 952 of the Act qualified the extent of the insurer s liability by the use of the unambiguous expression in all and since that expression was specially introduced by an amendment it must be allowed its full play
The legislature must be presumed to have intended what it had plainly said
But clause a did not stand alone and was not the only provision to be considered for determining the outside limit of the insurer s liability
It was necessary to give effect to the words any one accident  which formed part in the opening part of sub section 2 of section 95 of the Act
The Court therefore held that if more than one person was injured during the course of the same transaction each one of the persons must be deemed to have met with an accident
Accordingly 1155 the Court held that each of the persons who was entitled to claim compensation under clause a of sub section 2 of section 95 of the Act was entitled to claim a sum of Rs50000 which was the limit prescribed by the said clause on the date on which the accident referred to in that case occurred
The Court however distinguished the decision of this Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co Ltd vs Northern India Transport Insurance Co 1971 Supp
SCR 20 which was a case in which clause b of sub section 2 of section 95 of the Act had arisen for consideration
In doing so the Court observed thus The judgment of the Punjab High Court was brought in appeal to this Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co Ltd vs Northern India Transport Co For reasons aforesaid the judgment in that case is not an authority on the interpretation of clause a of section 952
After setting out the relevant provi sions of section 952 at pages 24 and 25 of the Report Hegde J speaking for himself and Jaganmohan Reddy J concluded In the present case we are dealing with a vehicle in which more than six passen gers were allowed to be carried
Hence the maximum liability imposed under section 952 on the insurer is Rs2000 per passenger though the total liability may go upto Rs20000  Towards the end of the judgment it was observed that reading the provision con tained in sections 95 and 96 together   it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in section 952
Hence the High Court was right in its conclusion that the liability of the insurer in the present case only ex tends upto Rs2000 each in the case of Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath  In view of the limit on the insurer s liability in re spect of each passenger the argument on the construction of the words any one accident  had no relevance and was therefore neither made nor considered by the Court
Different considerations may arise under clause b as amended by Act 56 of 1969 but we do not propose to make any observations on that aspect of the matter since it does not di rectly arise before us
 Section 952b as it existed before its amendment in 1982 dealt with the limits of the liability of an insurer in the case of motor vehicles 1156 in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment
Sub clause i of section 952b provided that in respect of death of or injury to persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of Rs50000 in all was the limit of the liability of the insurer
Sub clause ii dealt with the liability in respect of death of or injury to passen gers
Under that sub clause there were two specific limits on the liability of the insurer in the case of motor vehi cles carrying passengers
The first limit related to the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident
It was fixed at Rs50000 in all where the vehicle was regis tered to carry not more than thirty passengers at Rs75000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers and at Rs 100000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than sixty passengers
The said sub clause proceeded to lay down the other limit in respect of each passenger by providing that subject to the limits aforesaid as regards the aggregate liability the liability extended up to Rs 10000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs5000 for each individual passenger in any other case
Neither of the two limits can be ignored
In the present case the vehicle in question being a bus carrying passengers for hire or reward registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers the limit of the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident was Rs75000 and subject to the said limit the liability in respect of each individual passenger was Rs5000
We find it difficult to hold that the limit prescribed in section 952bii4 was only the minimum liability prescribed by law
The amount mentioned in that provision provides the maximum amount payable by an insurer in respect of each passenger who has suffered on account of the accident
This appears to us to be a fair construction of section 952 of the Act as it existed at the time when the accident took place
Our view receives support from at least two decisions of this Court
In Sheikhupura Transport Co Ltd vs Northern India Transport Insurance Co supra the motor vehicle involved was a passenger bus
On account of an accident which took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle two persons died on the spot
Their legal represen tatives claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
The Tribunal found that the legal represen tatives of each of the two persons who had died on account of the accident were entitled to compensation of Rs 18000 and directed that the entire sum should be paid by the insurance company
On appeal by the legal representatives as well as by the insurance company the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal 1157 representatives of each of the two deceased persons to Rs36000 and also allowed the appeal of the insurance company and limited its liability to the tune of Rs2000 in respect of each of the two deceased persons in accordance with section 952b of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided that where the vehicle was a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of Rs20000 and in respect of passengers a limit of Rs20000 in all and Rs2000 in respect of an individual passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six persons excluding the driver
The Court ob served that since in the said case the vehicle was one in which more than six persons were allowed to be carried the maximum liability imposed under section 952 of the Act on the insurer was Rs2000 per passenger though the total liability might go upto Rs20000 in a given case where large number of persons had suffered on account of the accident
Accordingly the Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court insofar as the question of the liability of the insurer was concerned
Clause b of section 952 of the Act again came up for consideration before this Court in Manjusri Raha  Ors etc
vs BL Gupta  Ors
 In that case also the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident was a bus carrying passengers on a route in the State of Madhya Pradesh
The Court followed the decision in the case of Sheikhupura Transport Co Ltd vs Northern India Trans port Insurance Co supra and limited the liability of the insurer to Rs2000 as provided by the Act at that time
The Court found itself in complete agreement with the observa tions made by the Kerala High Court in PB Kader  Ors
vs Thatchamma and Ors AIR 1970 Kerala 241 and approved the following observations made by the Kerala High Court It is sad that an Indian life should be so devalued by an Indian law as to cost only Rs2000 apart from the fact that the value of the Indian rupee has been eroded and Indian life has become dealer since the time the statute was enacted and the consciousness of the comforts and amenities of life in the Indian community has arisen it would have been quite appropriate to revise this fossil figure of Rs2000 per individual involved in an accident to make it more realistic and humane but that is a matter for the legisla ture and the observation that I have made is calculated to remind the law makers that humanism is the basis of law and justice 1158 The Court also suggested on its own that instead of limiting the liability of the insurance companies to a specified sum of rupees as representing the value of human life the amount should be left to be determined by a Court in the special circumstances of each case even in the case where passenger vehicles were responsible for the incident
Fazal Ali J who delivered the judgment in the above case further observed at pages 950 95 1 thus While our Legislature has made laws to cover every possible situation yet it is well nigh impossible to make provisions for all kinds of situations
Nevertheless where the social need of the hour requires that precious human lives lost in motor accidents leaving a trail of economic disaster in the shape of their unpro vided for families call for special attention of the law makers to meet this social need by providing for heavy and adequate compensation particularly through insurance companies
It is true that while our law makers are the best judges of the requirements of the society yet it is indeed surprising that such an important aspect of the matter has missed their atten tion
Our country can iII afford the loss of a precious life when we are building a progres sive society and if any person engaged in industry office business or any other occu pation dies a void is created which is bound to result in a serious set back to the indus try or occupation concerned
Apart from that the death of a worker creates a serious eco nomic problem for the family which he leaves behind
In these circumstances it is only just and fair that the Legislature should make a suitable provision so as to pay adequate compensation by properly evaluating the pre cious life of a citizen in its true perspec tive rather than devaluing human lives on the basis of an artificial mathematical formula
It is common knowledge that where a passenger travelling by a plane dies in an accident he gets a compensation of Rs100000 or like large sums and yet when death comes to him not through a plane but through a motor vehi cle he is entitled only to Rs2000
Does it indicate that the life of a passenger travel ling by plane becomes more precious merely because he has chosen a particular conveyance and the value of his life is considerably reduced if he happens to choose a conveyance of a lesser value like a motor vehicle Such an invidious distinction is absolutely shock ing to any judicial or social conscience and yet section 952d of the seems to suggest such a distinction
We 1159 hope and trust that our law makers will give serious attention to this aspect of the matter and remove this serious lacuna in section 952d of the 
 These observations were quoted with approval by this Court in the course of its judgment in Motor Owners Insur ance Co Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi  Ors supra and while doing so the Court observed that the above observa tions were still languishing in the cold
storage of pious wishes
Immediately after the decision in the Motor Owners Insurance Co Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi  Ors
supra Parliament took steps to amend sub clause ii of clause b of section 952 of the Act by Act 47 of 1982
After the said amendment subclause ii of clause b of section 952 of the Act reads thus 952b
Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward of by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment            ii in respect of passengers a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger
           As the law stands today the insurer is liable to pay upto Rs15000 in respect of death of any passenger or any injury caused to him
In the Statement of Objects and Rea sons attached to the Bill which ultimately became Act 47 of 1982 it was stated that the limit with respect to an insur er s liability to a passenger involved in an accident in a public service vehicle was being fixed at Rs15000
After the above amendment which was intended to increase the liability of the insurer instead of Rs10000 in the case of each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs5000 for each individual passenger in other cases which were the limits in force immediately prior to the said amendment the liability in respect of an individual passenger is now raised to Rs15000
This clearly demon strates that Parliament never intended that the aggregate liability of the insurer mentioned in subclauses 1 2 and 3 of section 952bii of the Act would be the liability of the insurer even when one passenger had died or suffered injury on account of an accident
Such liability was always further limited by sub clause 4 of section 952bii of the Act
Even in the latest Bill ie Bill No 56 of 1987 which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 11th of May 1987 for the purpose of consolidating and amending the law in regard to the motor vehicles it is proposed by 1160 section 147 to retain the provision regarding the limit of the insurer s liability in respect of vehicles in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment as it was provided by Act 47 of 1982
Section 1472bii of the Bill reads thus 1472
Subject to the proviso to sub section 1 a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits namely            b where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment           ii in respect of passengers a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger          
Having regard to the large number of motor vehicles accidents which are taking place on roads and also to the fact that a large number of public service vehicles carrying passengers are involved in them we are of the view that the limit of Rs15000 fixed in the case of each passenger appears to be still meagre and we hope that Parliament while enacting the Bill into law would take steps to increase the insurer s liability keeping in view the need for providing for adequate compensation as a measure of social security
We should at this stage state that the High Court of Madras in KR Sivagami Proprietor Rajendran Tourist vs Mahaboob Nisa Bi and Others has taken the same view as regards the effect of section 952bii of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1982
It has observed that the said provision specifically provided for two limitations on the liability of the insurer in respect of an accident in which a vehicle carrying passengers was involved the first limitation being the limitation con tained in sub clauses 1 2 and 3 of section 952bii which provided that for the aggregate liability of the insurer in an accident and the second limitation being the one contained in sub clause 4 of section 952bii which provided that subject to the limits aforesaid Rs10000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs5000 1161 for each individual passenger in any other case
Khalid J as he then was of the Kerala High Court has also accepted the same construction of section 952b in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co Ltd by its successor The United Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd and others vs VP Balakrishnan and others
 The High Court of Allahabad in New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Mahmood Ahmad and others the High Court of Bombay in Shivahari Rama Tiloji and another vs Kashi Vishnu Agarwadekar and others and the High Court of Patna in National Insurance Co Ltd vs Shanim Ahmad and others and in Tara Pada Roy vs Dwijendra Nath Sen and others have over looked the cumulative effect of sub clauses 1 2 and 3 and of sub clause 4 of section 952bii of the Act
They have failed to give effect to section 952bii4 of the Act
We are of the view that these decisions do not lay down the correct view
We may however state here that in Noor Mohammad and another vs Phoola Rani and others 18 and in Raghib Nasim and another vs Naseem Ahmed and others two Division Benches of the Allahabad High Court have construed the provision in ques tion as we have done in this case
The decision of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in New India Assur ance Co Ltd vs Mahmood Ahmad and others supra is dis sented from in the later decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raghib Nasim and another vs Naseem Ahmad and others supra
Having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendments by Act 47 of 1982 we hold that the insurer was liable to pay upto Rs10000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and upto Rs5000 for each individual passenger in any other case
The judg ment of the Kerala High Court against which this petition is filed has followed the above construction
We do not find any ground to interfere with it
This petition is there fore dismissed
In the end we propose to make a few suggestions to the Central Government in respect of certain provisions in Chapters X XI and XII of the Motor Vehicles Bill No 56 of 1987 now pending before Parliament which relate to the liability without fault in certain cases insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks and Claims Tribunals
Sections 140 147 161 and 166 in the Motor Vehicles Bill No 56 of 1987 correspond to sections 92A 95 109A and 110A of the present Act
The Bill does not propose to introduce any change in sections 1162 140 147 161 and 166 of the Bill from what the law is today
They are almost identical with the existing provi sions
In section 140 of the Bill which corresponds to section 92A of the Act the liability to pay compensation in the case of death of any person or in the case of permanent disablement of any person is proposed to be retained at Rs 15000 and Rs7500 respectively in the same way in which the law stands today
Having regard to the inflationary pressures and the consequent loss of purchasing power of the rupee we feel that the amount of Rs15000 and the amount of Rs7500 in the above provisions appear to have become unrealistic
We therefore suggest that the limits of compensation in respect of death and in respect of permanent disablement payable in the event of there being no proof of fault should be raised adequately to meet the current situation
Section 147 in the Bill corresponds to section 95 of the present Act Here again the Government may consider whether it is necessary to continue the distinction between public service vehicles and other motor vehicles in regard to the liability of the insurer to pay compensation
We also do not find any justification for continuing the distinction between the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to passengers and the liability of the insurer to pay compensa tion to other third parties under the said provisions
Even among the public service vehicles a distinction is made in the said provisions between vehicles used as goods carriages and vehicles used for the purpose of carrying passengers
The Central Government may consider whether the limits of liability of the insurer now incorporated in section 147 of the Bill should not be altered suitably
Section 161 in the Bill corresponds to section 109A of the present Act which makes special provisions as to compensation payable in cases of hit and run motor accidents
This provision provides for payment of Rs5000 in respect of death of any person re sulting from a hit and run motor accident and for the pay ment of Rs1000 in respect of grievous injury to a person from a hit and run motor accident
It is a matter of common knowledge that hit and run motor accidents are increasing in number
The society and the State which are responsible for such large number of motor vehicles being put on road should carry also the responsibility of protecting the interests of the innocent victims of hit and run motor accidents
A sum of Rs5000 and a sum of Rs1000 provided as compensation in respect of death or grievous hurt respectively appear to be highly inadequate
The Government may consider whether these figures should not be increased in an appropriate manner
Lastly we come to section 166 of the Bill which corresponds to section 110A of the present Act
This con tains the provisions relating to application for compensa tion to be filed before Claims Tribunals
It is stated therein that where death has resulted from the accident an application for compensation may be 1163 made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased
The expression legal representative  has not been defined in the Act and it has led to serious doubts in the course of judicial proceedings
Attention of the Government is drawn to the decision of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another  and the reference made in the said decision to the Report of the English Royal Commission on Civil Liberty and Compensation for Personal Injury under the Chairmanship of Lord Pearson
The Government may consid er whether it would not be advisable to define the expres sion legal representative  for purposes of making claims before Claims Tribunal where death had resulted from a motor vehicle accident in the same way in which the English Law has been amended
Since the Bill is on the anvil of Parlia ment we feel that this is the appropriate time for the Central Government to reconsider the above issues
A copy of this Order may be sent to the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Transport for information
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner was the owner of a bus being run as a stage carriage
On 24778 while carrying passengers this bus met with an accident as a result of which one passenger died
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver and awarded compensation of Rs56800 to the legal representatives of the deceased
It further held that the liability of the insurer to indemnify the petitioner was limited to Rs5000 as the policy specifically limited the insurer s liability to what had been provided by section 952bii2 and 4 of 
The appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the High Court
In the Special Leave Petition before this Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioner upto a limit of Rs75000 under section 952bii2 of the and that the further limit mentioned in section 952b ii4 was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court HELD 1
Having regard to the as it stood prior to the amendments by Act 47 of 1982
the insurer was liable to pay upto Rs10000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and upto Rs5000 for each individual passenger in any other case
1161F 21 Section 952b as it existed before its amendment in 1982 1150 dealt with the limits of the liability of an insurer in the case of motor vehicles in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment
1155H 1156A Sub clause i of section 952b provided that in respect of death of or injury to persons other than passen gers carried for hire or reward a limit of Rs50000 in all was the limit of the liability of the insurer
1156A Under sub clause ii there were two specific limits on the liability of the insurer in the case of motor vehicles carrying passengers
The first limit related to the aggre gate liability of the insurer in any one accident
It was fixed at Rs50000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry not more than thirty passengers at Rs75000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers and at Rs100000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than sixty passengers
The other limit was in respect of each passenger which provided that subject to the limits afore said as regards the aggregate liability the liability extended up to Rs10000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs5000 for each individual passenger in any other case
Neither of the two limits can be ignored
1156B D 22 The limit prescribed in section 952bii4 cannot be said to be only the minimum liability prescribed by law
The amount mentioned in that provision provides the maximum amount payable by an insurer in respect of each passenger who has suffered on account of an accident
This is a fair construction of section 952 of the Act as it existed at the time when the accident took place
1156E 23 After the 1982 amendment the liability of the insur er in respect of each individual passenger is Rs15000 as against Rs10000 in the case of each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs5000 for each individual passenger in other cases prior to the said amendment
This shows that Parliament never intended that the aggregate liability of the insurer mentioned in sub clauses 1 2 and 3 of section 952bii would be the liability of the insurer even when one passenger had died or suffered injury on account of an accident
Such liability was always further limited by sub clause 4 of section 952bii
1159F G 24 In the instant case the vehicle in question being a bus carrying passengers for hire or reward registered to carry more than thirty 1151 but not more than sixty passengers the limit of the aggre gate liability of the insurer in any one accident was Rs75000 and subject to the said limit the liability in respect of each passenger was Rs5000
1156D 25 As the law stands today the insurer is liable to pay upto Rs15000 in respect of death of any passenger or any injury caused to him
Having regard to the large number of motor vehicle accidents which are taking place on roads and also to the fact that a large number of public service vehicles carrying passengers are involved in them limit of Rs15000 fixed in the case of each passenger appears to be still meagre
1159E 1160E 3
The following suggestions in respect of certain provisions of the are made for considera tion of the Central Government i The limits of compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement payable in the event of there being no proof of fault have become unrealistic in view of inflation ary pressures and consequent loss of purchasing power of the rupee
These limits should therefore be raised adequately
1162B C ii There is no justification for continuing the dis tinction between public service vehicles and other vehicles and also between passengers and third parties with regard to the liability of the insurer to pay compensation
Even among the public service vehicles a distinction is made between vehicles used as goods carriages and those used for carrying passengers
It may be considered whether it is necessary to continue these distinctions and also whether the limits of liability of the insurer should not be altered suitably
1162D E iii The society and the State which are responsible for a large number of motor vehicles being put on road should carry also the responsibility of protecting the interests of innocent victims of hit and run motor accidents which are increasing in number
The amounts of Rs5000 and Rs1000 provided as compensation in respect of death or grievous hurt respectively appear to be highly inadequate
It may be considered whether these figures should not be increased in an appropriate manner
1162F G iv The expression legal representative has not been defined in the Act and it has led to serious doubts in the course of judicial proceedings
It may be considered whether it would not be advisable to define the said expression for purposes of making claims before Claims 1152 Tribunals where death has resulted from a motor vehicle accident in the same way in which the English Law has been amended
1163A C Motor Owners Insurance Co Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi Northern India Transport Insurance Co 1971 Supp
SCR 20 Manjusri Raha  Ors
BL Gupta  Ors
   PB Kader  Ors
vs Thatchamma and Ors AIR 1970 Kerala 241 KR Sivagami Proprietor Rajendran Tourist vs Mahaboob Nisa Bi and others  Madras Motor and General Insurance Co Ltd by its successor The United Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd and others vs
VP Ba lakrishnan and others  New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Mahmood Ahmad and others  Shiva hari Rama Tiloli and another vs Kashi Vishnu Agarwadekar and others  National Insurance Co Ltd vs Shanim Ahmad and others  Tara Pada Roy vs Dwijendra Nath Sen and others  Noor Mohammad and another vs Phoola Rani and others  Raghib Nasim and another vs Naseem Ahmad and others and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahme dabad vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another   referred to