Case: United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Antonetta D Souza

Vishnus case (1985 Mah LT 22) which was, as already said, approved by the Division Bench in Deepathummas case (1986 Ace CJ 520 ). If this is so, as otherwise is apparent, it is obvious that the learned Judge could not, in any event, have held the Insurance Company liable up to the limit of Rs. 75,000/- in each of the claim petitions, for it is common ground that all the claim petitions arise out of the same accident involving the same vehicle where the victims thereof were travelling as passengers. The liability of the Insurance Company was indeed, in the light of the said decisions of this Court, restricted to Rs. 75,000/- in all the four petitions and such liability had to be apportioned pro rata among the claimants in each of the four petitions. ( 9 ) MR. Coelho Pereira has contended that this is not the real meaning and import of the above decisions of this Court, for any one accident, spoken of in Sub-S. (2) of S. 95 has to be looked into from the angle of the victim of the accident as held in Modis case (AIR 1981 SC 2059 ) and that since there existed four separate accidents from the angle of each of the victims of the accident, the liability of the Insurance Company goes in each of such cases up to the limit of Rs. 75,000/ -. We are however unable to accept this view. In Modis case, the Supreme Court has been dealing with the provisions of S. 95 (2) (a) as they stood before the amendment and it was in the context of the said provisions of law that the Court held that the expression any one accident occurring in the Section had to be looked into from the point of view of the various claimants, each of whom is entitled to make a separate claim for the accident suffered by him and not from the point of view of the insurer. Then, the Court proceeded to make a reference in para 24 to its judgement in sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1971 Acc CJ 206 ; (AIR 1971 SC 1624 ) to observe that the said judgement was not an authority on the interpretation of Cl. (a) of S. 95 (2), for the matter before the Supreme Court in that case was in respect of Cl. (b ). Then, after quoting the observations made in Sheikhupuras case to the effect that it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in S. 95 (2), their Lordships observed in Modis case that in view of the limit on the insurers liability in respect of each passenger, the argument on the construction of the words any one accident had no relevance and had therefore neither been made nor considered by the Court. It was added that different consideration may arise under Cl. (b) as amended. It is thus clear that though in Modis case the Supreme Court has not taken a view different from the earlier view in Sheikhupuras case inasmuch as the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in S. 95 (2), nonetheless it left the issue open. Now, as it is seen, this Court has in the circumstances held in the cases of Kashi Vishnu and Deepathumma that the expression any one accident has also to be looked into from the angle of the victim of the accident of Cl. (b) and considering the express provision of Sub-S. (4), further held that in any event, the liability of the Insurance Company will not exceed the outer limits fixed in the Section. This view is, in our opinion, in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura and Modis case taken together and interprets it. Thus, the view taken by this Court in Kashi Vishnu and Deepathummas cases is binding on us, for it is well-settled that an interpretation and equally, a misinterpretation of a binding decision of the Supreme Court will itself be binding subsequently on a co-ordinate Court and must be got corrected by a higher Court and no co-ordinate Court on that ground may refuse to follow an earlier decision opining that in its view the earlier decision had wrongly understood and improperly applied a decision of a higher Court. This proposition of law gets support in the observations made in Halsburys Laws of England, Third Edition Vol. 22, page 80 and in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Panjumal Hassomal Advani v. Harpal Singh Abnashi Singh Sawhney, AIR 1975 Bom 120 . ( 10 ) WE already observed that in Deepathummas case (1986 Acc CJ 52d) the Division Bench has held that the liability of the Insurance Company is to be distributed pro rata among the several claimants. In the present cases, the amounts of compensation awarded are not the same, for in Appeal No. 46/85 the compensation awarded was of Rs. 52,000/-, in Appeal No. 47/85 of Rs. 50,000/- in Appeal No. 50/85, of Rs. 78,000/- and finally, in Appeal No. 51/85, of Rs. 25,000/- only. In the first three cases, the victims met with their deaths in the accident, while in the fourth the claimant got injured. We find it rather difficult to apportion to total liability (Rs. 75,000/-) of the Insurance Company (Appellant) among the claimants in each of the petitions, but since the total amount of the compensation to be paid to the claimants in the four petitions is of Rs. 2,05,000/- and the balance of Rs. 1,30,000/- is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, we think that in the circumstances, the said liability of the appellant should be up to the limit of Rs. 18,750/- in each of the petitions, the remainder of the compensation being to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, the respondent Teotonio Pereira.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]( 7 ) WE do not think that the view advanced by the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle is correctWe are however unable to accept this view. In Modis case, the Supreme Court has been dealing with the provisions of S. 95 (2) (a) as they stood before the amendment and it was in the context of the said provisions of law that the Court held that the expression any one accident occurring in the Section had to be looked into from the point of view of the various claimants, each of whom is entitled to make a separate claim for the accident suffered by him and not from the point of view of the insurer. Then, the Court proceeded to make a reference in para 24 to its judgement in sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1971 Acc CJ 206 ; (AIR 1971 SC 1624 ) to observe that the said judgement was not an authority on the interpretation of Cl. (a) of S. 95 (2), for the matter before the Supreme Court in that case was in respect of Cl. (b ). Then, after quoting the observations made in Sheikhupuras case to the effect that it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in S. 95 (2), their Lordships observed in Modis case that in view of the limit on the insurers liability in respect of each passenger, the argument on the construction of the words any one accident had no relevance and had therefore neither been made nor considered by the Court. It was added that different consideration may arise under Cl. (b) as amended. It is thus clear that though in Modis case the Supreme Court has not taken a view different from the earlier view in Sheikhupuras case inasmuch as the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in S. 95 (2), nonetheless it left the issue open. Now, as it is seen, this Court has in the circumstances held in the cases of Kashi Vishnu and Deepathumma that the expression any one accident has also to be looked into from the angle of the victim of the accident of Cl. (b) and considering the express provision of. (4), further held that in any event, the liability of the Insurance Company will not exceed the outer limits fixed in the Section. This view is, in our opinion, in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura and Modis case taken together and interprets it. Thus, the view taken by this Court in Kashi Vishnu and Deepathummas cases is binding on us, for it isd that an interpretation and equally, a misinterpretation of a binding decision of the Supreme Court will itself be binding subsequently on ae Court and must be got corrected by a higher Court and noe Court on that ground may refuse to follow an earlier decision opining that in its view the earlier decision had wrongly understood and improperly applied a decision of a higher Court. This proposition of law gets support in the observations made in Halsburys Laws of England, Third Edition Vol. 22, page 80 and in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Panjumal Hassomal Advani v. Harpal Singh Abnashi Singh Sawhney, AIR 1975 Bom 120 ( 10 ) WE already observed that in Deepathummas case (1986 Acc CJ 52d) the Division Bench has held that the liability of the Insurance Company is to be distributed pro rata among the several claimants. In the present cases, the amounts of compensation awarded are not the same, for in Appeal No. 46/85 the compensation awarded was of Rs., in Appeal No. 47/85 of Rs. 50,000/in Appeal No. 50/85, of Rs. 78,000/and finally, in Appeal No. 51/85, of Rs. 25,000/only. In the first three cases, the victims met with their deaths in the accident, while in the fourth the claimant got injured. We find it rather difficult to apportion to total liability (Rs.) of the Insurance Company (Appellant) among the claimants in each of the petitions, but since the total amount of the compensation to be paid to the claimants in the four petitions is of Rs. 2,05,000/and the balance of Rs. 1,30,000/is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, we think that in the circumstances, the said liability of the appellant should be up to the limit of Rs. 18,750/in each of the petitions, the remainder of the compensation being to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, the respondent Teotonio Pereira.