# Defendant v. Kalawati Devi and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 545
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-06-30
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.968 of 1990
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/defendant-v-kalawati-devi-and-others-41198
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri A.K. Bhatt
Sri S.C. Dwivedi
Sri P.K. Misra

Motor
Vehicle
Act
1939-Section-95Limited
liability-Vehicle
insured with
Insurance Company-Photostat copy of
policy filed before Tribunal-Rejection on
the ground the Registration number not
mention, while the Engine and chassis
numbers are the same-held-not properconsidering
limited
liability-the
Insurance
Company
liable
to
pay
15,000/- half amount of award to be
paid by the vehicle owner.

Held: Para 3

Merely because in the insurance policy
the registration number of the vehicle
was not mentioned, it could not be said
that it was not connected with the
vehicle in question. Address of the owner
was the same. Engine number/chassis
number given in the policy tallied with
the said numbers of the engine and
chassis of the vehicle. Accordingly under
Section 95 of Motor Vehicle Act 1939
liability was limited. In the insurance
policy there was no mention that liability
was
un-limited
or
enhanced
than
minimum.
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

## Text

2 All] New India Assurance Co. V. Kalawati Devi and others
545
completed by the respondent authorities,
the persons who have been promoted vide
order dated 10.11.1999 which has been
quashed by this Court shall not be
disturbed. If at the time of final promotion
the persons already promoted are found to
be entitled for promotion they shall be
retained. In case those promoted persons
are to be reverted on account of order
passed by this Court, they should also be
heard by the respondents before their
reversion from the post of accountant to
the post of Assistant Accountant.

16.

Before parting with the
judgment I, need to clarify that since the
issue has been decided only on principle
for
determination
of
seniority
and
promotion which could not be disputed by
learned Standing Counsel and factual
aspect of the matter has been left over for
determination to the concerned authority
afresh after hearing the persons likely to
be
affected,
therefore,
hearing
of
individual private persons before this
Court who are likely to be affected by this
judgment,
was
merely
an
empty
formality. As such in view of law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C.
Mehta Vs. Union of India and others
AIR 1999 SC 2583, Canara Bank and
others Vs. Sri Debasis Das and others JT
2003 (3) SC 183 and Canara Bank Vs.
V.K. Awasthy JT 2005 (4) SC 40,useless
formality theory can be pressed into
service.

17. In view of the aforesaid
observation
and
direction,
the
writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.06.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

First Appeal From Order No.968 of 1990

New India Assurance Company

 ...Defendant-Appellant
Versus
Kalawati Devi and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.C. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Bhatt
Sri S.C. Dwivedi
Sri P.K. Misra

Motor
Vehicle
Act
1939-Section-95Limited
liability-Vehicle
insured with
Insurance Company-Photostat copy of
policy filed before Tribunal-Rejection on
the ground the Registration number not
mention, while the Engine and chassis
numbers are the same-held-not properconsidering
limited
liability-the
Insurance
Company
liable
to
pay
15,000/- half amount of award to be
paid by the vehicle owner.

Held: Para 3

Merely because in the insurance policy
the registration number of the vehicle
was not mentioned, it could not be said
that it was not connected with the
vehicle in question. Address of the owner
was the same. Engine number/chassis
number given in the policy tallied with
the said numbers of the engine and
chassis of the vehicle. Accordingly under
Section 95 of Motor Vehicle Act 1939
liability was limited. In the insurance
policy there was no mention that liability
was
un-limited
or
enhanced
than
minimum.
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. At the time of arguments in this
appeal
no
one
appeared
for
the
respondents even though case was taken
up in the revised list accordingly, only the
arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant were heard.

2. This appeal is directed against
judgment award and order dated 31.5.1990
given
by
Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal/IXth Additional District Judge,
Allahabad in Motor Accident Case No.81 of
1986 Smt. Kalawati Devi and others vs.
Jaishree Singh and others. One Amar Nath
died in a motor accident. His widow
Kalawati Devi and others (respondents)
filed the claim petition giving rise to this
appeal
claiming
compensation
of
Rs.2,05,000/-. The tribunal below awarded
the compensation of Rs.93,600/-. Half of
the awarded compensation was directed to
be paid by owner/insurer of the vehicle
bearing no. URS 9650 and the other half by
owner/insurer of the vehicle bearing
no.RNB 331. 12% interest was also
awarded. The deceased was traveling in
mini bus bearing no. URS 9650. It collided
with the truck no. RNB 331 head-on.
Appellant insurance company was insurer
of mini bus bearing no. URS 9650.

3. In para-14 of the impugned
judgment
the
argument
of
appellant
regarding
limited
liability
has
been
considered. It is also mentioned in the said
para that the appellant had filed photostat
copy of insurance policy. The contention
was rejected on the ground that in the
insurance policy number of the vehicle was
not mentioned. Copy of the said photocopy
has been filed alongwith Supplementary
affidavit in this appeal. In the said policy
engine number and chassis number has
been mentioned. Address of the owner
given therein is also the same as was given
in the claim petition. Learned counsel for
the appellant has argued that normally
insurance policy is taken before taking out
the vehicle from the show room and
registration number by R.T.O. is provided
after about a week. I fully agree with the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellant. An owner of a motor vehicle is
entitled to get the vehicle registered with
R.T.O. within a week from its purchase.
Merely because in the insurance policy the
registration number of the vehicle was not
mentioned, it could not be said that it was
not connected with the vehicle in question.
Address of the owner was the same. Engine
number/chasis number given in the policy
tallied with the said numbers of the engine
and chasis of the vehicle. Accordingly
under Section 95 of Motor Vehicle Act
1939 liability was limited. In the insurance
policy there was no mention that liability
was un-limited or enhanced than minimum.

4. Accordingly appeal is allowed in
part. Impugned order is modified. It is
directed that appellant is not liable to pay
more than Rs.15,000/- alongwith awarded
interest under the impugned judgment and
award. Rest of the 50% amount shall be
payable by the mini bus owner i.e.
respondent no.2-Jai Shri Singh.
---------