G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals have been heard together and are decided by a common judgment on the request of learned counsel for the parties, as they relate to one accident.
(2.) IN all these cases the challenge is to the award of Accident Claim Tribunal Kota dated 6. 1. 1986. On the intervening night of 10th and 11th May, 1981 a Sub-Inspector of police Mr. Udai Bhan Singh and Head Constable Mr. Devi Singh alongwith a driver of vehicle RRR 1987 went for checking of the vehicles on Jhalawar Road. They kept the vehicles on the correct side of the road under a "ber tree. " The claimants say that Mr. Den Singh and Mr. Gopal Singh driver were seated on the Muddas under the tree near the aforesaid vehicle. At about 4 A. M. a vehicle standard 20 came from the Jhalawar Side struck against both the persons and then collided with the vehicle No. RRR 1987 and committed an accident. Devi Singh and Gopal Singh both received fatal injuries and they dies. The vehicle which was driven rashly and negligently caused accident was RJQ 1725 and was driven by Mangilal. Two claim petitions were filed 58 of 1981 by legal reprenatatives of Devi Singh and 59 of 1981 of Gopal Singh. It is not necessary to mention in detail the evidence and decide again afresh the question of rashness and negligence as it has not been seriously challenged in these appeals. Even other-wise on a perusal; of the relevant evidence referred to have come to the conclu-sion, that the accident happened on account of rashness and negligence in driving of Mangilal. The question, which calls for determination and adjudication which) has now been pressed before this court simply relates to the liability of the insurance company. According to Mr. Shrivastava,. the liability of the insurance company, could not be more than. 50,000/- rupees. His submission is that the accident happened at a time when the amendment was not in force. The: accident according to the averment which are not in dispute happened between intervening, night of 10th and 11th May, 1981 and the amendment raising the liability of insurance company from 50,000/- to 1,50,000/- came into force in 1982. That being; so the finding of the Tribunal that the amendment would apply obviously is wrong. I have got no hesitation in accepting this contention of Mr. Shrivastava because this amendment cannot be treated as retrospective, because the liability, of insurance company has been increased from Rs. 50,000 to l,50,000/- under section. 95, of the Motor Vehicle Act is from the relevant date in 1982 and not 1981 as, held by the Tribunal.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the insurance company is justified in asserting that the liability should not be more than Rs. 50,000/ -. The learned counsel for the truck owner, argued that the police officers were sitting at a place which was not safe for them, and therefore they must be held guilty, of contributory negligence. I have looked into the evidence on this relevant point. 1 find that the place where police officers were sitting was not so exposed as it was not in between the road,. nor it was obstructing the way and the vehicle could have easily passed. . That being so the submission of learned counsel cannot be accepted. No other argument was made, no other point was pressed by any, other counsel for the parties. The result of the above discussion is that so far. as the, appeal of United India, Insurance. Go. Vs. Nand Kanwar 78 of 1986 and United India Insurance Co. vs. Smt. Kamla are concerned are partially, accepted to this extent that the liability, of insurance company would be 50,000 rupees only. The appeals of Bhagwan Das& and anr. vs. Smt. Bund Kanwar and others, S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 84 of 1986 and (S,b. Civil Misc Appeal No. 83 of 1986), are, dismissed. In, all the. cases, the parties will bear their own costs. . ;