The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.K Mal Lodha, J.:— This special appeal under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants no. 1 and 2 and Oriental F re and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (respondent no. ???) under sec 110-A of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (the Tribunal’) by its award dated March 10, 1978 allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proport???onate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under sec. 110-D against the respondents. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal and ordered that Prakash Chandra, Mathuralal (appellants) and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (the Insurance Company’ herein) should pay a sum of Rs. 31,500/- as compensation to them. The liability of the Insurance Company for the payment of compensation was fixed at Rs. 5000/- being statutory liability It was further ordered by the learned single Judge that the aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal, i.e, March 10, 1978, until it is paid. This judgment, as stated above was rendered on February 7, 1985. Prakash Chandra and Mathura Lal (appellants) have filed this special appeal against the Insurance Company and the claimants. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge committed an error when he held that the liability of the Insurance Company will only be to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. Thi view taken by the learned single Judge was assailed on the basis of the decision reported in (1) Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.K Modi, (1981) 4 SCC 660 : A.I.R 1981 S.C 2059. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 supported the judgment of the learned single Judge for the reasons given by him.
3. Sec. 95(2) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time was as follows:—
“(2). Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely:—
(a) where the vehicle is a vehicle used or adopted to be used for the carriage of goods, a limit of twenty thousand rupees;
(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 mode than six passengers excluding the driver or two thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry a more than six passengers excluding the driver;
(c) where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class the amount of the liability incurred.”
4. Cl. (b) was substituted for the original by the Amendment Act (No. LVI of 1969) w.e.f March 2, 1970. Prior to this, overall liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs. 20000/- and Rs. 2000/- per passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers. This overall liability was intended by the aforesaid Amendment upto Rs. 10,000/- depending upon the number of passengers the bus/vehicle is registered to carry and Rs. 5000/- per passenger depending upon the nature of the vehicle. The amendment is, thus, regarding compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company.
5. We have carefully considered Motor Owner's Insurance Co.'s case (1), which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned single Judge has stated that Motor Owners' Insurance Co.'s case (1) related to the death caused in an accident by a goods vehicles and no occasion arose in that case for their Lordships to decide the liability of insurer in respect of an accident resulting from a passenger bus. We may usefully refer to para, 26 of the report, in which reference has been made to (2) Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern Indian Transport Co., (1971) 1 SCC 785 : A.I.R 1971 S.C 1624. It was stated in para 26 that Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (2) is not an authority on the interpretation of clause (a) of sec. 95(2). In support of that, observations made at page 1627 in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (2) by Hedge, J., speaking for himself and Jaganmohan Reddy J. have been quoted, which are as under:—
“In the present case we are dealing with a vehicle in which more than six passengers were allowed to be carried. Hence the maximum liability imposed under sec. 95(2) on the insurer is Rs. 2000/- per passenger though, the total liability may go upto Rs. 20000/-.”
6. We may here refer to the observations made in this connection in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (1), which are as under:—
“Towards the end of the Judgment, it was observed that reading the provisions contained in Section 95 and 96 together.”
“…. ….it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in Section 95(2). Hence the High Court was right in its conclusion that the liability of the insurer in the present case only extends upto Rs. 2000/- each, in the case of Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath.” In view of the limit on the insurer's liability in respect of each passenger, the argument on the construction of the words, “any one accident” had no relevance and was, therefore, neither made nor considered by the Court. Different considerations may arise under clause (b), as amended by Act 56 of 1969, but we do not propose to make any observations on that aspect of the matter, since it does not directly arise before us”
7. A perusal of para 2 of the report will show that that case related to sec. 95(2) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, Motor Owners' Co. Ltd.'s case (1) cannot be taken to be an authority for the purpose of interpreting sec. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act. It was held in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (2) that in the absence of any contract to the contrary the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in sec 95(2)(b) of the Act as it stood then. This case was of course distinguished, as stated above, in paras 25 and 26 in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (1). The principle laid down in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (2) wherein sec. 95(2)(b) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment is applicable, to the case on hand and according to that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claims upto Rs. 5000/- only, under sec. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act. This view was taken by this Court in (3) Automobile Transport v. De???lal, 1976 W.L.N 783, and (4) Sampat Lal v. Smt. Geeta Devi, 1985 R.L.R 1052, 1 where, one of us (P.C Jain, J.) after considering a number of cases, including Automobile Transport's case (3) and Shekhupura Transport' Co. Ltd's case (2) held that under sec. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) the statutory liability of the Insurance Co. is only upto Rs. 5000/- and not beyond that. The unamended sec. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act came up for consideration before G.M Lodha J., in (5) Suraj Narain v. Sneh Lata Jain, 1965 A.C.J 581. It was held that there is a ceiling of Rs. 5000/- in case of passengers in vehicle other than motor cab as enshrined in sub-clause (4), and the insurance company would be liable to pay Rs. 5000/- for each individual passenger travelling in a bus as is covered by section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act. We may mention that this view was also taken by the Kerala High Court in (6) Madras Motor and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. V.P Balakrishanan, 1982 A.C.J 460, in which, after considering Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (1), it was observed as under:—
8. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the principles laid down in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (2) are attracted in this case and according to that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 5000/- only u/s. 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Act. Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (1) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is clearly distinguishable.
9. The view taken by the learned single Judge limiting the liability of the Insurance Co. to the extent of Rs. 5000/- is correct and no interference is called for in the appeal.
10. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal. The result is that this appeal fails and it is, hereby, dismissed.
11. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.