S. S. DULAT, J. :- A passenger bus belonging to the Shcikbupura Transport Company Ltd. met with an accident and two passengers were killed. Their widows and other heirs made claims for compensation before the Tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The bus was insured against third party risks necessary under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insured being the Northern Indian Transporters Insurance Company. The Tribunal found that a sum of Rs. 8000/- was payable as compensation to one widow and Rs. 14,000/- to the other and directed under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the whole of this compensation be recovered from the Insurance Company Against that decision two appeals were filed by the Insurance Company and two cross-appeals by the claimants who prayed for higher compensation. The appeals were heard in the first instance by one of us and the main point taken on behalf of the Insurance Company was that the insurance concerning passengers was limited to the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act under S. 95(2), and in terms of that Section the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 20,000 in respect of all the passengers and it was further limited in the case of each injured or deceased passenger to Rs. 2000. It was found that the question was sufficiently important to be considered by a larger Bench, and the appeals were, therefore, made over to a Division Bench. That Bench, of which two of us were member in turn, bought that this important question ought to be settled by a Full Bench, and the question of law has, therefore, come before us.
2. The controversy turns on the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the precise question referred to us for decision runs thus - "If an insurance policy is taken out in respect of a passenger bus and is limited to the terms of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the bus meets with an accident resulting in injuries to several passengers, is the liability of the insurer not to exceed Rs. 20,000 in respect of all the passengers taken together, and is it limited to Rs. 2,000 in respect of each injured passenger, and, if so, how is compensation recoverable from the insurer to be apportioned among the injured persons ?" The second part of the question concerning apportionment presents no great difficulty and everybody before us is agreed that if there is to be an apportionment it should be in proportion to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each injured person. The first part of the question, however, is in serious controversy.
3. It is admitted that a passenger bus cannot be run without being insured against what is called third party risk Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes that quite clear. Sub-Section (1) of Section 95 then says that "in order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must comply with certain conditions and one of those is that the person or classes of person specified in the policy must be insured to the extent specified in Sub-Section (2) Then we go to Sub-Section (2) which says - "(2) 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 twenty thousand rupees in all including the liabilities, if any arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 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, in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees; and in respect of passengers a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, and four thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver or two thousand rupees In respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver." There is clause (c) also which is not however material. The relevant provision is in clause (b). Does it mean that in the case of a bus carrying more than six passengers excluding the driver, the liability of the insurer in respect of an individual passenger, who may be injured, is only Rs. 2,000/- and in respect of all the passengers taken together is it only Rs. 20,000/- and no more ? According to the Insurance Company concerned in the present cases, the liability of the insurer is limited in this manner provided of course the insurance policy is itself limited to the terms of the Act. It is admitted, that any bus owner or driver may take out an insurance policy which goes beyond the terms of the Act and covers more risk than the minimum required to be covered by the statute, but with that situation we are not concerned here. We have to assume that the insurance policy is limited to the terms of the Act and the question is whether that limit, as mentioned in Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 95, is not required to exceed Rs. 20,000/- in respect of all the passengers and not to exceed Rs. 2,000/- in the case of an individual passenger. The plain words of the Act support the view put forward on behalf of the Insurance Company. As against this it is urged on behalf of the Transport Company and also the injured parties, that this apparent meaning drawn from the words of the Act is not the correct meaning and that the true meaning is that the minimum limit of the insurers liability is Rs. 20,000/- plus another Rs. 2,000/- per passenger who may be injured and in the alternative Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- multiplied by the carrying capacity of the bus Neither of these interpretations is, however, borne out by the language of the Act Resort is therefore, had to the supposed object behind the Act and the suggestion is that Parliament intended, when providing for compulsory third party insurance, that persons travelling in public vehicles should be adequately insured and further that if such passengers are insured they should be able to recover adequate compensation from not only the negligent transporter but also and at once from a solvent insurer Reference in this connection is made to Section 96 which makes an Insurer liable directly to the injured party in spite of the fact that there is no privity of contract between them. The scheme of that section is that where a properly insured bus within the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act meets with an accident and passengers are injured and the Tribunal finds that compensation is payable to the injured parties. Then that compensation can to the extent that it is covered by the policy is directly recoverable by the injured parties from the insurer, that is, the Insurance Company. There is a provision that the insurer is sent notice of the proceedings and can resist such proceedings before a Tribunal on certain limited grounds but once an order for payment of compensation is made, then to the extent it is covered by the policy of insurance it is recovered from the insurer. That fact, however, does not and cannot mean that every bit of compensation that may be awarded to an injured party against a negligent transporter can be directly recovered from the insurer, and it is admitted that it is only that damage, that is insured under Section 95(2) that is so recoverable, so that we go back to the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 95. It is, of course, legitimate to think that the object behind this legislation was that injured parties may be able to recover some compensation directly from the insurer, but it does not help us to determine the extent of that compensation and the precise extent is mentioned only in Sub-Section (2) of Section 95. It is said on behalf of the passengers and the transporters that if all that is recoverable from the insurer by an injured passenger is Rs. 2,000/- and no more and even that amount may have to be reduced in case a large number of persons are injured, as there is the second overall limit of Rs. 20,000/- then the provision would seem to be hardly adequate. This is, however, only looking at one side of the picture. On the other side is the consideration that Parliament may well have thought it unreason able to impose a heavy burden on the transporters arising out of insurance, for obviously if the Act requires therein to insure their vehicles in such a way that a large amount of compensation would become payable by the insurer, then the burden of insurance will increase and that burden has necessarily to be borne by the transporter. That consideration may well have led Parliament to limit the amount to Rs. 20,000/- then the connection with any one, single accident and may further have led to the limit of Rs. 2,000/- in respect of an individual passenger who may be injured. As I have said, the words of the Act do not seem capable of the meaning attributed to them on behalf of the transporters and the passengers, and there seems no justification why the plain words should be subjected to any violence. What Sub-Section (2) of Section 95 seems to say is that where a vehicle is a goods vehicle, the limit is Rs. 20,000/- and that includes liability under the Workmens Compensation Act payable to workmen not exceeding six and where the vehicle is carrying passengers that is a bus carrying passengers then the limit is Rs. 20,000/- in all and there is a further limit in respect of individual passengers which is Rs. 4,000/- if the vehicle can carry not more than six passengers and is Rs. 2,000/- if the vehicle can carry more than six passengers. It was said that there is no rational ground for making this distinction between a vehicle carrying six passengers and a vehicle carrying more than six passengers but there is little doubt that the Act does make a clear distinction between these two kinds of vehicles and consequently mentions Rs. 2,000/- for each passenger where the vehicle is large and Rs. 4,000/- for each passenger where the vehicle is small. It is conceivable that Parliament thought that the kind of passengers travelling in a smaller vehicle would be different from those travelling in a large bus and consequently a distinction in the limit in each case was made. It is impossible to obliterate this distinction and to read the Act as if it intended to make no such distinction. The argument, therefore, that these two figures mentioned at two places, that is, Rs. 4,000/- in respect of one kind of vehicle and Rs. 2,000/- in respect of another kind of vehicle do not relate to the amount covered in respect of each passenger but are merely a formula for calculating the overall amount of liability, cannot stand. The suggestion is that the Legislature here is merely saying that in respect of smaller vehicles the limit of liability is Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 4,000/- multiplied by the number of passengers carried and in respect of larger buses the limit of liability is Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- multiplied by the number of passengers carried. It is this conclusion which I find it difficult to agree with. The straightforward course is to take the language of the Act as it stands and a reading of that leaves no doubt that in the case of a bus carrying more than six passengers the limit of the liability is Rs. 20,000/- in all and there is a further limit in respect of each individual passenger which is Rs. 2,000/- I would, therefore, say an answer to the question posed for our decision that if an insurance policy is taken out in respect of a large passenger bus and is limited to the terms of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that bus meets with an accident resulting in injuries to several persons, the liability of the insurer is not to exceed Rs. 20,000/- in respect of all the passengers taken together find it is not to exceed Rs. 2,000/- in respect of each injured passenger. Secondly, I would say that if compensation recoverable from the insurer has to be apportioned among the injured, then the distribution must be made in proportion to the compensation awarded to each passenger by the Tribunal.
4. D. K. MAHAJAN, J. :- I agree.
5. P. C. PANDIT, J. :- So do I. [The case being directed to the Division Bench for disposal the Bench delivered the following judgment. : D/- 15-12-1965].
6. S. S. DULAT, J. : Roundabout 9-40 a.m. on the 11th February 1959 a passenger bus travelling on the main road between Ludhiana and Ferozepore got out of the drivers control and struck a tree on its off side. In the result, two passengers - Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath - died on the spot, while some others received smaller injuries. Bachan Singhs widow (Sham Kaur) and Narinder Naths widow (Amrawati) filed claims for compensation before the Tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Sham Kaur claimed on behalf of herself and her two daughters a sum of Rs. 3,24,000 The names of the two daughters - Harbans Kaur and Balbir Kaur were not mentioned in the first application which was filed within time, that is, on the 6th April, 1959, but subsequently their names were sought to be introduced through an application dated the 2nd November 1959, Amrawati claimed Rs. 85,000 on behalf of herself and her minor children. The bus belonged to the Sheikhupura Transport Company Private Limited and it was insured with the Northern India Transporters Insurance Company, and both of them were joined in the claim as respondents. The tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the bus driver and the transport company was consequently liable. It held that proper compensation due on account of Bachan Singhs death would be Rs. 18,000 and then apportioned it among the claimants as below:- Bachan Singhs widow (Sham Kaur) : - Rs. 8,000. His daughter (Harhans Kaur) :- Rs. 4,000, His daughter (Balbir Kaur) :- Rs. 6,000 The tribunal, however, held that the claim of the two daughters was time barred and nothing was payable to them and, in the result, it made a direction that the widow. Sham Kaur, he paid Rs. 8,000 as compensation.
7. Regarding Narinder Naths death, the tribunal held that proper compensation again was Rs. 18,000 and directed it to be paid to the heirs in certain proportions. Further, the Tribunal in both these cases ordered that the entire compensation will he recovered from the insurance company under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against the decision, two appeals have been filed by the insurance company one concerning Sham Kaurs claim (First Appeal from Order 155 of 1960) and the other concerning the claim of Amra Wati (First Appeal from Order 145 of 1960) - while two cross-appeals (First Appeal from Order 6 of 1961 and First Appeal from Order 7 of 1961) have been preferred on behalf of the claimants asking for enhancement of the compensation. All the four appeals can be conveniently disposed of together.
8. The transport company owning the bus has not filed any appeal, but Mr. Tirath Singh appearing for that company has sought to support the order of the tribunal not only on the grounds taken by it but also on certain oilier grounds. One of his contentions, however, is that the tribunals finding, that the accident was due to the negligence of the bus driver, is not on the evidence correct and although he cannot of course in the absence of any appeal claim that no compensation should be granted, he is, according to his submission, entitled to urge that no enhancement in compensation should be allowed. I am not clear if Mr. Tirath Singh is in this manner entitled to have the question of negligence reopened but, since there is on the merits no particular substance in the contention, it is in the present case not necessary to go into that matter. The evidence is perfectly clear that on the road, along which the bus was travelling, there was at the time of this incident no particular traffic. I had started to drizzle a little at that time and in view of this some of the passengers pointed out to the driver that he was perhaps driving too fast. The driver, Jagdish Lal, paid no heed to this warning and in fact retorted that he was already late and could not therefore travel slowly. Soon after that the bus apparently skidded and got out of control and hit a tree not on its near side bin also on the opposite side. Mr. Tirath Singh suggested, as had been the suggestion of the driver when he gave evidence, that in fact the bus was travelling at a reasonable speed, 23 to 24 miles an hour, but, as there were some pits on the road, he had to keep twisting the steering wheel frequently to avoid the pits and on account of a sharp twist the tie-rod became loose and the steering thus got out of control and the bus could not be stopped before struck a tree. Reliance was placed on the circumstance that when the bus was inspected after the accident, it was found that the pull and push rod in the steering had been dislodged. The evidence of the motor mechanic. Deva Singh (R.W. 1), was relied upon for that purpose but that evidence does not show that the pull and push rod did not came on as a result of the impact with the tree on that it had happened prior to that. Further, if the bus was really travelling at the slow speed as mentioned by the driver no explanation is forthcoming why, when the steering got out of control, the bus could not be stopped, the road being fairly wide. It is obvious, therefore, that the bus was being driven at some speed and it was not under proper control and the driver omitted to take note of the drizzle on the road which was likely to cause a skid unless the vehicle was well under control. In the circumstances of this case, it is, in my opinion, idle to look for the precise and immediate cause of the accident as the manner in which it happened and the attending circumstances are eloquent of negligence and but for considerable negligence on the drivers part no such accident could have possibly occurred. Nor do I see any reason for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses in the bus who say that even in their judgment the bus was being driven too fast and in spite of their warning the driver paid no need. I feel satisfied therefore, that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver and that he was driving the vehicle without proper control, over it is admitted, of course, that for this negligence the transport company is in law liable.
9. Mr. Tirath Singh then says that the driver of the bus was not made a party to the proceedings and there was therefore, some illegality in the trial. There is no point in this submission, for it is not necessary for a claimant to implead every person guilty of a tort so long as the party against whom the claim is pressed, is joined in the claim and that party of course is the transport company. The mere circumstance, that the transport company may have some claim against the driver, is of no consequence and really of no concern to that claimants.
10. Mr. Tirath Singh next disputes the correctness of the amount of compensation awarded, but the question there is whether it should be enhanced as in the absence of an appeal by the transport company, no reduction in the claim can be made.
11. The two appeals by the Insurance Company (F. A. Os. 145 and 155 of 1960) are easily disposed of. A Full Bench of this Court, to which this question was referred, has decided that under the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act to which the insurance policy in this case conforms the insurer is liable to contribute only two thousand rupees in the case of each injured passenger and the liability is limited to the sum of Rs. 2,000 Counsel agree, in view of the Full Bench decision, that the insurance company can be directed to pay only Rs. 2,000 to the claimants in each of the cases, the rest of the compensation being payable by the transport company owning the bus. It was suggested in the course of arguments, although not very seriously, that the insurer in this case had undertaken liability exceeding the minimum required by the Motor Vehicles Act, but that is not so and the terms of the policy are clear that it was limited to what is the minimum required by the Act.
12. There remain the two appeals by the claimants that is, the heirs of Bachan Singh in one case, and those of Narinder Nath in the other (F.A.Os. 6 and 7 of 1961).
13. Regarding Bachan Singh it appears that he has left behind a widow Shrimati Sham Kaur and two daughters, Harbans Kaur and Balbir Kaur. The Tribunal below first finds that the average annual income of Bachan Singh deceased was about Rs. 9,000 out of which about Rs. 2,000 was income from land and a house which of course are now inherited by the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the income lost to the heirs was about Rs. 7,000 per annum, but be reduced it further to Rs. 6,000 per annum, thinking that there might be some exaggeration in the stated income. Actually, however, it appears that there was hardly any room for exaggeration. Further, the Tribunal held that out of the total income the deceased was probably contributing only about Rs. 100 a month to family expenses spending the rest on himself. Mr. Sethi urges that this was an arbitrary view and there was no reason to think that Bachan Singh was spending the bulk of his income on him and considering that his total income was about Rs. 9,000 a year, he could hardly have spent most of it on himself leaving only Rs. 100 a month for his family. I think, there is force in this contention and considering everything it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to think that he must have been spending at least Rs. 200 a month on the family, that is, the widow and the daughters. The Tribunal has found that Bachan Singh who was roundabout 42 or 43 years old, could legitimately he expected to live for another 15 years. The total loss would, therefore, in my opinion come to Rs. 36,000 and not Rs. 18,000 as found by the Tribunal I say this because otherwise, too. Rs. 18,000 us compensation appears to me far too little, while Rs. 36,000 is in all the circumstances reasonable. I would, therefore, hold that the claimants have suffered to the extent of Rs. 36,000 by the death of Shri Bachan Singh.
14. The Tribunal was of opinion that out of Rs. 18,000 fixed as compensation. Rs. 8,000 should be paid to the widow and the remaining Rs. 10,000 to the two daughters, but he went on to hold that the claim on behalf of the daughters was belated haying been formally made only on the 2nd November 1959, and therefore directed that nothing be paid to the daughters. This conclusion has been seriously challenged before me and on good grounds. It has to be remembered that a claim of this kind, which arises out of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is to be made on behalf of the heirs mentioned in that Act, namely, the wife husband, parent and child, and, although the claim can be made by an executor or an administrator or a representative of the deceased it is essentially a claim on behalf of all of them. There was, therefore, no justification for excluding the compensation payable to the daughters merely because their names were brought into the proceedings at a later stage. Apart from this, I find that even a late claim can be admitted by the Tribunal and in the present case it certainly should have been admitted I would, therefore, in disagreement with the Tribunals view, hold that the total amount of compensation namely, Rs. 36,000 now fixed should all be paid in the following manner, that is, Rs. 16,000 to Sham Kaur. Rs. 8,000 to Harbans Kaur and Rs. 12,000 to the second daughter Balbir Kaur who is younger. Out of this claim Rs. 2,000 is ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company the Northern India Transporter Insurance Company, and the rest by the transport company the Sheikhupura Transport Company Limited, Ludhiana.
15. Regarding Narinder Nath, the total compensation fixed by the learned Tribunal is the same as in the case of Bachan Singh deceased, and he has arrived at the figure of Rs. 18,000 on the view that Narinder Nath being about of the same aged as Bachan Singh could be expected to live for another 15 years and further that he was contributing no more than Rs. 100 paid to the family again, seems to the expectation of his life is not unreasonable, the amount of Rs. 100 paid to the family again, seems too little. The evidence shows that Narinder Nath, who was working as a commission agent was earning income which was rising every year, and in the last year, that is, in 1958-59, his income was nearly Rs. 5,000. He had a larger family consisting of a widow and seven children. Naturally, therefore, although his total income was smaller than that of Bachan Singh, there is little doubt that he must have been spending a larger portion of that income on his family and Rs. 200 per month for the family expenses is certainly not too large. I would, therefore, fix the compensation on account of his death payable to his heirs at Rs. 36,000. Out of this, Rs. 8,000 should be paid to his widow Shrimati Amra Wati, and the remaining Rs. 28,000 should be paid to his seven children in equal shares, that is Rs. 4,000 each. It is true that two of the children, being girls, are shown to be earning some income of their own, but that is not in my opinion sufficient justification for depriving them of their share of the compensation as the Tribunal below appears to have done. They are both girls and certainly in need of money for their future, I do not, therefore, propose to make any distinction between them and the other children and, as already mentioned. I would direct that each of the seven children be paid Rs. 4,000 and the widow of course Rs. 8,000. Out of this total sum of Rs. 36,000, the insurance company, the Northern Indian Transporters, Insurance Company, is ordered to pay only Rs. 2,000 (Sic) and the balance, that, is Rs. 28,000, must be paid by the transport company, namely, the Sheikhupura Transport Company Limited, Ludhiana. The costs of the two appeals by the Insurance Company (F.A.Os. 145 and 155 of 1960) will he borne by the parties themselves, while the costs of the claimants appeal (F.A.Os. 6 and 7 of 1961) will be paid by the Transport Company.
16. The result is that all the four appeals are allowed in terms and to the extent indicated above.
17. P. C. PANDIT, J. : I agree. Appeals allowed.