G. M. LODHA, Actg. C. J. - (1.) THESE five appeals arise out of two judgments and it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
(2.) ON 7. 8. 75, Mohammed Rafique was driving the 'three wheeler' Taxi bearing No. RSQ 2153" and was passing through Bhati crossing towards the Circuit House, Jodhpur, Towards the Circuit House, Jodhpur, one tractor bearing No. RJQ 1781 came with speed and dashed against the taxi. Mohammed Rafique, driver of the Taxi received injuries and the three wheeler was damaged and squeezed. The owner of the three wheeler is Sohanlal while Shri Ghanshyam Dass Daga is the owner of the Tractor. The deceased Balkishan was sitting in the three wheeler. The member of the bereaved family of Balkishan filed a claim petition and the driver of the three wheeler Mohammed Rafique (injured) as well as the owner of the three wheeler Shri Sohandass also filed the claim petitions. The appellants have filed the above-mentioned five appeals against the Awards while the claimants have not filed any appeal. The appeals were also filed by the owners of the vehicles and the drivers. The cross-objection has been filed by the Insurance Company in one case. Mr. A. R. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal against the Award of Claims Tribunal, if the amount is less than two thousand rupees. During the course of arguments, the only point pressed before me by the owners of the vehicles and the drivers is that the liability of the Insurance Company is comprehensive. The Insurance policy and caption are on record. The vehicle is commercial and its policy is comprehensive. The submission of Mr. Mehta is that the liability mentioned below in the policy is not comprehensive but its limit is to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. I have heard the arguments in detail in Chhagan Kanwar v. Nanuram & others (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80/79, decided on 4. 2. 88) in which, I have referred the earlier decision of this Court in Virendra Kumar v. Smt. Veena and others (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30/83, decided on 7. 1. 88), which is also based on the earlier decision of this Court in Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram (1), wherein, it was held that the liability of the Insurance Company in the cases of comprehensive insurance is unlimited. In view of the reasons given in the aforesaid case, it would be sufficient to mention that the caption is comprehensive and its veracity can not be belied and betrayed. The detailed reasons have been given in the cases referred to above and I need not repeat further. I hold that the liability of the Insurance Company is comprehensive and the Awards given by the learned Tribunal are upheld.
(3.) MR. A. K. Mehta also pointed out that in case of Mohd. Rafique and Mohanlal, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation against the Insurance Company on the ground that the licence of the driver is learner and there are certain lacunae and defects in the licence. Mr. S. D. Rajpurohit, has rightly pointed out that this very licence to the subject-matter in other cases and if in the other cases, this very licence is involved and for the same driver and for the same accident after holding the Insurance Company liable for the payment of compensation, it is not open to the Tribunal to take a contrary view. I am inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Rajpurohit. Even otherwise, there are series of decisions on this point, where the driver possesses a learner licence, the injured or the member of the bereaved family cannot be deprived of the Award. In S. B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 76/85- Ghanshyanidass v. Mohanlal the appellant has challenged the amount of compensation on the ground of being excessive and in the alternative that the Insurance Company should also be held liable as the policy of the Insurance Company was comprehensive and liability of the Insurance Company is complete and comprehensive and co-extensive with that of insurer. So far as the present case is concerned, a meagre amount of Rs. 800/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In my opinion, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and powers of this Court are not fatter-ed by sec. 110-D (2) while dealing the question of liability of the Insurance Company. It is not necessary to emphasize that this Court has ample powers of original jurisdiction and of superintending nature under the various decisions, it is empowered to exercise them whenever it has become necessary to invoke them. That being so, the objection is over-ruled. ;