LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. RAJ KUMARI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
SMT. RAJ KUMAR! AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND
LOKESHW AR SINGH P ANTA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s.147-Award of compensation-High Court while passing
award of Rs.1.25 lacs, held that liability of insurer is limited to
A
B
c
Rs. 50, 000, however, insurer would pay entire amount to claimants and
recover amount in excess of Rs. 50, 000 from the insured-On appeal,
held, liability of insurer is limited to Rs.50,000-Balance of D
compensation be recovered from the insured.
Rate of interest-Award of compensation with interest@ 12%
p.a.-On appeal, held: /nterestfixed@9% p.a. considering the date
of accident.
Precedent
Reliance on the ·decision without looking into the factual
background of the case before.the court-Held: Not proper-Decfsion
is precedent on its own facts-Observations of courts are neither to
E
be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute-These F
observations to be read in the context in which they are stated-Judge$
interpret words of statutes-Their words not to be interpreted as
statutes-Judgment-interpretation of
The conductor of the bus lost his life in an accident His widow~ G
minor children and parents claimed compensatior. of Rs. 1.40 lacs~
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.57 ,600/-with interest@
12% p.a. It however held that the liability ofinsurerwas limited tc;>
Rs.50,000/-. The claimants filed appeal before the High Court. The
1141
H
'r
\
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 11 S.C.R.
{
A High Cou~ enhanced compensation to Rs.1.25 lacs and upheld the
view of tribunal as to liability of Tribunal. However, it was held that
the entire amount was to be paid by the insurer to the claimants and
insurer could recover the amount in excess of Rs.50,000/- from the
..
owner and the driver of the vehicle.
B
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that having held
that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.
50,000/-, the High Court was not justified in directing payment of
the entire amount by it and to recov~r the differential amount and
c
that the rate of interest is big~.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that in certain cases this Court has, after
looking into the fact situation, directed the insurance company to
.1
D
make payment with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the
liability from the insured. Those decisions were given on the facts
_..(
situation of the cases concerned. [Para 10] .[1146-F]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. C.M Jaya and Ors., [2002] 2
SCC 278; and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shakuntala Garg and
f
E Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2000, disposed of on 10.1.2003),
ref erred to.
2.1. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual
background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision
is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features.
F It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that
"
I
"
constitutes a precedent. [Para 11] [1146-G]
•
)o
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Garg and Ors., (Civil
~
Appeal No.104 of2000, disposed of on 10.1.2003; and State of Orissa
G v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors., AIR (1968) SC 647, relied on.
2.2. A case is a precedent and bindiiig for what it explicitly
j...
decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments
are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament.
.._
[Para 11) [1147-C,D]
H
r
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAJKUMARI
1143
Quinn v. Leathern, (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), referred to.
A
2.3. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation
of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the
statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations
must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret
words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary
B,
for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is C
meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they
do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their
words are not to be interpreted as statutes.
[Para 12) [1147-E, F, G)
2.4. Circumstantial flexibilityExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.