IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 787 of 1990 Sh.Daulat Ram (since deceased) through his Legal Representative-Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Deepak Suri,Advocate. Versus Bhanu Partap and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (2) F.A.O. No. 788 of 1990 Sh.Daulat Ram (since deceased) through his Legal Representative-Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Deepak Suri,Advocate. Versus Bhanu Partap and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals F.A.O.No.787 of 1990 -2- .... which have have been preferred against common award and short award dated 18.4.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 1 and 2 of 1989. The only point raised in these appeals is that the offending vehicle was validly and comprehensively insured with unlimited liability towards thirty party, yet, the Tribunal made the appellants jointly as well as severally liable along with the insurance company to satisfy the impugned award on the premise that no extra premium had been paid and that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the one provided under the statute,i.e., Rs.1.5 lacs. In F.A.O.No.787 of 1990, the award is in the sum of Rs.1,93,280/- and in F.A.O.No.788 of 1990, it is for Rs.64,000/-. Besides, interest at the rate of 12% per annum has also been allowed to the claimants from the date of filing of claim petitions till the date of realisation. In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 7.8.1988, Kartar Singh and Prem Devi lost their lives and their legal heirs filed the aforementioned two claim petitions which have been disposed of by the impugned award giving rise to the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the insurance policy, which is on record as Exhibit R5 and to the testimony of RW4- H.C.Verma. It was stated that the policy itself reflects that Rs.156/- were paid towards the third party liability, but it was sought to be explained by RW4 by stating that it was a mistake. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and F.A.O.No.787 of 1990 -3- .... perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue is erroneous. No attempt was made by the insurance company to prove that figure of `Rs.156/-' against the column of `third party liability' was misprinted. RW4 has not denied that this amount was not paid. If this amount was paid and if an extra amount had been paid, the same should have been explained by producing cogent evidence in the shape of tariff schedule etc. for the insurance cover. Since no such evidence has come on record, the Tribunal has gone wrong in simply going by the statement of RW4. The policy, Exhibit R5, reflects the payment of extra premium for third party liability. A presumption of truth is attached to terms of the policy which are explicit unless something contrary is shown. In this eventuality, the finding recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and it is held that the liability of the insurance company in so far as the third party is concerned is unlimited. Therefore, in F.A.O. No.787 of 1990, it is directed that the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle shall be jointly as well as severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the liability of the insurance company to do so shall be unlimited. In so far as F.A.O.No.788 of 1990 is concerned, the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.64000/- which is, in any case, covered even if the plea of statutory liability is accepted and, therefore, it is directed that the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle shall be jointly as well as severally liable to be pay the awarded amount and interest to the claimants. F.A.O.No.787 of 1990 -4- .... No other point has been argued. The impugned awards is modified to the above extent and the appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 10,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge