MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dt. 17.02.1993.
(2.) THE claimants non -appellants preferred claim petition, stating that on 07.11.1986, at about 5.00 p.m., Kanji and Dharia were going on bicycle to village Miya -ka -Parla. On the way at Ghatol Anandpuri road, a Bus bearing No. RJB 2772 hit bicycle, due to which Kanji and Dharia fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Dharia died in the hospital, whereas Kanji sustained fracture. Due to death of Dharia, claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - was claimed towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/ - were claimed towards mental agony to the parents of Dharia and Rs. 10,000/ - for wife. In reply to the claim petition, Insurance Company disputed the income of Dharia, apart from disputing the issuance of the cover note. The Insurance Company disputed insurance of the vehicle prior to accident. The learned Tribunal framed three issues which were then decided in favour of the claimants and the dependents of Dharia were allowed a total sum of Rs. 1,66,000/ -. However, the liability of the Insurance Company was kept limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. The appeal is finally pressed only on one issue which is pertaining to limited liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. Originally, the appeal was not filed to challenge the liability of the Insurance Company. However, during the pendency of the appeal, this Court issued an order on 19.01.2004, directing the trial Court to decide the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company. The Court framed an issue by invoking its jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 25, CPC. Pursuant to the said direction, the trial Court passed an order on 31.03.2004, holding that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - only. As the appellants were given liberty to file objections in the order dt. 19.01.2004, thus appellants submitted objections against the order of the trial Court dt. 31.03.2004. Learned Counsel for the appellants urges that the Tribunal has committed an error in limiting the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - only, though the vehicle was insured for all liabilities as additional amount of premium was paid. It was contended that the comprehensive insurance was sought by paying extra amount of Rs. 40/ -. However, ignoring the facts pertaining to extra payment of insurance premium, the Tribunal has passed order on 31.03.2004, holding that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -.
(3.) TO justify the argument of the claimants, my attention was drawn to the Insurance Policy (Ex.A - 10), wherein under the head of Section II, following provisions were mentioned pertaining to liability of third party: 1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant 'scost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect to: (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or loading of the Motor Vehicle. PROVIDED ALWAYS that: (a) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriageway or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the Motor Vehicle for loading thereon or the taxing away of the load from the Motor Vehicle after unloading therefrom. (b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirement of Section 92/A and 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of an in the course of such employment. (c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , in relation to liability under the Workmen 'sCompensation Act, 1923, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the even tout of which any claim arises. (d) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or a member of the insured 'shousehold or being conveyed by the Motor Vehicle. (e) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to any bridge and/or weighbridge and/or viaduct and/or to anything beneath by vibration or by the weight of the Motor Vehicle and/or load carried by the Motor Vehicle. (f) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property caused by sparks or ashes from the Motor Vehicle or caused by or arising out of the explosion of the boiler of the Motor Vehicle. (g) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the explosion of the boiler of the Motor Vehicle unless such death or injury is caused by or arises out of the use of the Motor Vehicle in public place in India within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ;