H. K. Sema, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise from the same judgment and order and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Appeal No. 5463 of 1998 had been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the Award and Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 1999 had been filed by the claimants for the enhancement.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows :- A young Assistant Engineer aged about 27 years had died in a motor accident on 10-1-1988 while travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. URN 9428. The said bus was insured with the appellant-company. At the time of death the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 2384.50 p. The claim petition was filed by the wife of the deceased. The policy issued on 19-5-1987 was comprehensive and was valid till 18-5-1988. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and the insurance policy awarded a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- as compensation payable by the appellant-company along with 12% interest per annum up to date. On appeal, being filed by the appellant, the High Court after hearing both the parties at length maintained the Award granted by the Tribunal but reduced the rate of interest to 9% per annum instead of 12%. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant-company argued that the original policy issued by the appellant-company had an endorsement affixed to it by which "I.M.T. 13" was incorporated as a term of the policy and, therefore, the premium paid by the owner could fetch only to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation per passenger. It is argued that the premium amount paid was Rs. 1290/- covering the risk of 43 passengers and, therefore, the amount per passenger comes to Rs. 30/- and as per the Indian Motor Tariff Rules the liability of the company is only to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- per passenger. It is further argued that the company had filed true copy of the policy before the Tribunal in which there is an endorsement "I.M.T. 13," but both the Tribunal and the High Court have committed an error in placing reliance on the copy of the policy which was produced by the Bank Manager, in which there was no endorsement "I.M.T.13" as in the case of the copy of the policy produced by the appellant-company.;