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

( 2 ) AN accident took place on 20th Dec. , 1980 at Vazem, Shiroda, Goa, involving a bus No.9 belonging to the respondent Teotonio Pereira which was being driven at the relevant time by the respondent Patric Dsouza. The vehicle went off the road while negotiating a turn and was balancing on the edge of the road. Some passengers tried to come out of the bus and then, the vehicle turned turtle and went down some ten metres away from the road. According to the petitioners in the said cases, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent Patric who did not take the necessary precautions while negotiating a turn of the road and was driving the bus at a high speed. As a result of the said accident, one Mrs. Assumption Dsouza, one Ganpat Bhikaji Sawant and one Ramesh Datta Naik came to die and the respondent Vijay Rama Patil sustained serious injuries( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal dealt with the four petitions together and ultimately passed by the impugned Awards. In the case filed by the heirs of Mrs. Assumption Dsouza, a compensation of Rs. 52,000/was awarded to the petitioners and directed to be paid by the respondents in the petition jointly and severally with interest of 6% from the date of the claim till complete satisfaction. In the case filed by the heirs of Ganpat Bhikaji Sawant, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/was awarded also to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents in the petition with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the claim till satisfaction; in the case filed by the heirs of Ramesh Datta Naik, a compensation of Rs. 78,000/was awarded and it was ordered that the amount of Rs. 75,000/was to be paid by all the respondents in the petition jointly and severally being the balance amount including interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the claim till its satisfaction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition only and in the petition filed by the injured Vijay, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/was awarded and ordered to be paid jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum by all the respondents( 4 ) THESE appeals were filed only by the Insurance Company and it is not challenged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the respondent Patric. The amount of compensation awarded is not also challenged and the short point raised by the appellant is that its liability goes up to Rs. 75,000/only in all the four cases, but the Tribunal has awarded the compensation without making it clear that the liability of the appellant was restricted in all to Rs.

Reasoning: ( 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.