K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) IN ail the three appeals, the point for consideration is the limit of liability for the Insurance Company. The insured 'svehicle was a passenger carrying bus and the persons that had made the claims were either the injured or the representatives, who were travelling in a jeep that had collided with the bus. As far as the claimants were concerned, the deceased or the injured persons were third parties to the bus. The accident had taken place on 15.07.1986 and admittedly the terms of the policy were governed by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. As far as the liability of the Insurance Company was concerned, the terms of the policy mentioned the limit of liability as "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939". The relevant provision relating to a third party claim against a passenger carrying vehicle has to be traced to Section 95(2) which opens with expression "where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment - (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of Rs. 50,000/ - in all." The subsequent clause in (ii) refers to the limit of liability in respect of passengers. The amendment Act 47 of 82 that was brought into effect from 1st September, 1982 made an amendment with reference to a claim at the instance of the passengers or their representatives, which is covered under Section 95(2)(b)(ii), there was no amendment with reference to Section 95(2)(b)(i). It meant that the limit of liability stood frozen at Rs.50,000/ - for a claim at the instance of a third party or his representatives. This continued to be so till the Act was repealed and the 1988 enactment replaced by providing for an unlimited liability for enforcement against an Insurance Company.
(2.) THE Tribunal, while discussing the limited of liability, made an issue on the fact that the proposal form had not been filed into Court to examine what was the limit which was mentioned in the proposal. If the terms of the policy themselves were filed before Court and there was no denial of the fact of the issuance of policy to the owner, he cannot plead for rights in excess of what is assured under such terms. I have seen the copy of the policy where I find that only a basic premium of Rs.240/ - has been paid for third party risk. There is no escape from a consequence that each one of the claims arising under the accident would stand pegged down to Rs.50,000/ - as regards the insurer. The amount in excess shall, therefore, be recovered against the owner/insured only. Consequently, the appeals in FAO Nos.575 and 577 of 1988 are allowed restricting the liability of the insurer only to Rs.50,000/ - in each case with interest and FAO No.576 of 1988 is dismissed on the ground that the claim awarded fell below the limit of liability at Rs.50,000/ -.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the case if the Insurance Company had paid the amount in excess of the limit as found now through this order, the right of recovery for the insurer will avail only against the insured and not against any of the claimants.;