S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act')
(2.) IT is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants No. 1 and 2 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) under Section 110-A of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') by its award dated March 10, 1978, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under Section 110-D against the respondents. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal and ordered that Prakash Chandra, Mathuralal (appellants) and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur ('the Insurance Company' herein) should pay a sum of Rs. 31,500/- as compensation to them. The liability of the Insurance Company for the payment of compensation was fixed at Rs. 5000/- being statutory liability. It was further ordered by the learned single judge that the aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal, i.e., March 10, 1978, until it is paid. This judgment, as slated above, was rendered on February 7, 1985. Prakash Chandra and Mathura Lal (appellants) have filed this special appeal against the Insurance Company and the claimants. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge committed an error when he held that the liability of the Insurance Company will only be to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. The view taken by the learned single judge was assailed on the basis of the decision reported in Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi . On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supported the judgment of the learned single judge for the reasons given by him.
(3.) SECTION 95(2) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time was as follows: (2). Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely: (a) Where the vehicle is a vehicle used or adopted to be used for the carriage of goods, a limit of twenty thousand rupees; (b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees; and in respect of passengers a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, and four thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver or two thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry a more than six passengers excluding the driver ; (c) Where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class the amount of the liability incurred. Clause (b) was substituted for the original by the Amendment Act (No. LVI of 1969) w.e.f. March 2. 1970. Prior to this, overall liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers. This over-all liability was intended by the aforesaid Amendment upto Rs. 10,000/- depending upon the number of passengers the bus/vehicle is registered to carry and Rs. 5000/- per passenger demanding upon the nature of the vehicle. The amendment is, thus, regarding compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company.;