KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant challenges the award passed by Shri K.K. Singh, IInd Additional District Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Etah (hereinafter to as 'Tribunal') in case No.4 of 1987 (Smt. Kela Devi and Others v. Jahoor Ali and Others).
(2.) The deceased succumbed to the death while travelling in bus No. UPT 4551 at about 12.30 p.m. on 15.7.1986 from Kasganj to Etah. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and after reaching near the bridge the driver applied the break in such a way that the deceased sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital. The deceased was a police official working in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, for his death a sum of Rs. 4,07,400/- was claimed. The owner and the driver admitted the accident who submitted that it was an act of god and not rash and negligent driving on the part of driver. It is submitted that for avoiding collision with another vehicle, the driver tried to save the bus but it went and fell into the ditch. It is submitted that the claimed amount was over exaggerated as the claimants had already claimed before the Collector and, therefore, the Tribunal should stay the proceeding. It was also submitted that vehicle was not comprehensively insured and there was clause for limited liability. The Insurance Company contested the petition by filing its written statement and contended that petitioners had no right to sue and the petition was bad for waiver, acquiescence and collusion. It was barred by the statutory provisions of law, the bus was not insured with the Company and it was being driven in violation of the conditions of the Insurance Company. Without prejudice and without admitting the liability, the risk covered by the Company under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,1939'), was limited, the deceased was himself guilty and responsible for the alleged accident and that he was not earning Rs. 900/- per month and he was not travelling in the bus involved in the accident.
(3.) This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant. In this appeal several grounds are raised, however, the main submission is regarding the liability of Insurance Company. It is submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs.15,000 only as per the provisions of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) read with Section 96 of the Act, 1939. Their liability was not absolute as per the statute and no amount could have been awarded to be paid by them under the Act, 1939.;