http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: CHIMAJITAO KANHOJIRAO SHIRKE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERA INSURANCE CO. LTD

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/07/2000

BENCH: A.P.Misra, Ruma Pal

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     The  short  question raised in this appeal 1s  whether the  words  "unlimied personal Injury and  property  damage" upto  Rs.  10 lakhs for which premium of Rs.  134/- was paid as recorded In the Insurance policy itself covers the dearth and  bodily lnjury of the "insured or not.  According to the statement on behalf of the appellants, who are the claimants before  us, the language used therein clearly Indicates that the insured would also be covered under It, while submission on  behalf of the Insurance company is, this only co-relates to  the  damage of the property and has no correlation  with the personal injury or death of the insured.

     The  short  facts are that the apoellant filed a  suit for    recovery    of     Rs,      6,03;000/-    from    the defendant-respondent, insurance company.  The appellants are the  parents  of the rjeceased Mahendra Shirke, who died  in the accident on 8th

     January,  1980.  The said deceased obtained loan  from Maharashtra  Finance  Corporation and Bank of  Baroda  under "educated Unemployment Scheme" for purchasing goods truck In the  year  1977.   He  obtained  the  said  loan  under  the condition  that.   he will drive personally the said  truck. According  to  the appellants" case, the  deceased  Mahendra insured  his  truck with the respondents to the tune of  Rs. 10 lakhs, which 1s a cornorehensive Insurance covering risks for  unlimited  personal  injury and property.  ’  The  said truck  was also Insured as per the policy to the tune of Rs. 1,27,000/-  for  the damage to the property.  It 1s  not  In dispute  that on the date of the accident the said truck was covered  with  the  said Insurance policy.   In  fact;   the question  which  we have to decide 1s the  Interpretation.of the policy Itself.

     On  these  facts, the trial court decreed the suit  in favour  of the appellants for the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.  The Trial Court while considering Issues  No.   1 and 9 after considaring the  submissions  of both the parties concludes that the payment of Rs.  134/- as premium was for the unlimited personal Injury to the life of the  insured  as well as to the property to the tune of  Rs. 10  lakhs and finally recorded its finding to the fol lowing effect:  -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

     "Moreover,  there 1s no iota of evidence to prove that the  contents as against premium at Rs.  134/- as  unlimited personal Injury and

     damages  to  be  Rs,  10 lakhs  has  been  wrongly  or misakenly shown in that.  policy,"

     This finding is recorded in view of the stand taken by the  insurance  company before the TriaJ Court, namely,  the recording  of  the  words "unlimited  personal  injury’  was wrongly  recorded therein.  Tn support of this, reference is made  by  learned counsel for the appellants to the  written statement  tiPed  by the insurance company, which 1s to  the foTiowina ef feet:-

     "The   noting  of  ’Unlimited   personal  Tn.jury   is redundant;  the premium is accepted either to cover property damage  or personal injury.  It is due to oversight/mistake, the wording "Unlimited personal Injury’ is typed against the additional  premium of Rs.  134/- ..,.." Being aggrieved  by the order of the Trial Court, the insurance company fi^ed an appear  before  the High Court and by means of the  impugned order  the  High Court set aside the judgment of  the  TriaJ Court and avowed the appeal,

     The  High  Court holds that insurance company  is  not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs (appellants herein)  on  account of death of insured Mahendra under  the terms of the said policy.  This conclusion is drawn in view