Ajit Kumar Nayak, J. - (1.) The only short question that has been raised in these two appeals heard analogously, viz., Nos. 406 and 407 of 1980, arising out of the decision of the Claims Tribunal Judge, dated 18th September, 1979, is the extent of liability of the appellant insurance company. It has been urged that in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the upper limit of liability of an insurer cannot exceed Rs. 5,000/- in anyone accident, involving a vehicle carrying passengers.
(2.) It is an admitted position that following an accident on 19.6.1977, involving passenger bus No. WWB 2226, in the district of Midna-pore, two claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal Judge, Midnapore, one in respect of deceased passenger, Hemanta Kumar Samanta, travelling by the said bus and the other in respect of a helper employee, Binoy Krishna Ghanta, of the offending bus meeting the same fate. Both the claim petitions were tried and heard analogously and disposed of by the same judgment by the Tribunal Judge, awarding compensation of Rs. 45,000/-to the heirs of the deceased passenger and Rs. 27,000/- in respect of the helper employee.
(3.) The findings of the Tribunal Judge on the points of incident, death of the persons concerned and negligence in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time have not been questioned or pressed before us. The only points that have been urged are the extent of liability of the appellant insurance company and denial of such liability for the deceased helper as an employee of the bus in question.;