BALIA, J. - (1.) A short question had been raised in this appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, against the award of the Judge, M. A. C. T. (Addl. District Judge No. 2), Udaipur, dated 17. 09. 1991.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased - Bhimji Bhai Patel whose heir and legal representatives are respondents No. 1 to 3, met with an accident on 24. 12. 1987, while he was travelling alongwith other persons in a jeep taxi, No. RST 6526, from Vijaynagar to Udaipur. On a claim petition by the respondents No. l to 3, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation against the owner driver and the Insurance Company. THE Insurance Company pleaded that as the deceased was a passenger of the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant, he cannot be treated as a 'third party' and any liability arising out as a result of injury to a passenger carried on for hire and reward of the vehicle, is not covered under the third party risk, but the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent provided under Sec. 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is applicable in the present case, inasmuch as the accident has arisen prior to commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. At the relevant time, the limit of liability in respect of passengers carried for hire or reward, was Rs. 15000/- in case of p73 each death. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Paras Kumar (1), and the connected cases, decided on August 4, 1993, following the decision of their Lord ships of Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. Vs. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and Another (2) has held that passenger of a vehicle in respect of which claim has arisen is not covered under the 'third-party risk' and subject to any additional risk covered by the Insurance Company under its policy, the liability of the Insurance Company under the Act only policy is limited to the extent provided under Sec. 95 (ii ). In Pushpabai's case (supra), their Lordships observed as under: - ". . . The plea that the words "third party" are wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer is negative as the insurance cover is not available to the passenger made clear by the proviso to sub-section which provides that a policy shall not be required : " (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by a reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. "therefore, it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. " Following the aforesaid decision, the Award of the Tribunal, to the extent it fastens the liability of Insurance Company by treating the petitioner as 'third party, cannot be sustained. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The Award of the Tribunal to the extent it fastens the unlimited liability on the Insurance Company the appellant, is set aside and the case is sent back to the M. A. C. T. , Udaipur for deciding the liability of the Insurance Company afresh, in accordance with the terms of the policy, keeping in view the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. .;