Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally on appeal itself.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a limited liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in view of the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and, therefore, the appellant-Company is not liable to make payment of more than Rs. 50,000/-.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a specific clause even in the insurance policy under the heading Avoidance of certain terms and Right to recovery' and, therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Amrit Lal Sood & Anr. v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thanpar & Ors., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1433 : 1998 (2) T.A.C. 97 , and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu & Ors., 2000 AIR S.C.W. 4535 : 2001 (1) T.A.C. 656.;