G. M. LODHA, Actg. C. J. - (1.) THESE are two appeals, both by Virendra Kumar and Shanti Devi. They are owners of the truck. The cases arises out of a claim for compensation in an accident.
(2.) THE only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the judgment of this Court in Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram (1) and the subsequent judgment of this court in Supyar Kanwar v Ramesh Chand (2), the liability of the Insurance Company in cases of comprehensive Insurance, the liability is unlimited. It is argued that the lower court has committed serious error in limiting the liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ only. Mr. Arora relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. K. Kunhimohammed vs. P. A. Ahmedkutty (3) in which it has been held as under: Death of passengers in a bus accident, the amount prescribed under sub-cl. (4) is maximum amount payable in respect of each passenger. In the case of death of single passenger, the insurer is liable to pay only Rs. 5,000/-". He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prem Chand v. Jasoda (4) in which it was held that the Insurance Co. was liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in each case. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Sampat Lal vs. Geeta Devi (5) and Vimla Srivastava Vs. Smt. Rajnidevi Sharma (6) and so also Prakash Chandra Vs. The Oriental Firm and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (7 ). I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The submissions of Mr. Arora comes to this that the decree has been granted by the Insurance Co. to the full extent in the lower court and since the Insurance Co. has not filed an appeal, there is nothing to decide by this Court. The reliance was placed by the appellants on the later judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Supyar Kanwar's case (supra), makes it very clear that when the clause in the Insurance Policy mentions liability as unlimited, this is irrespective of the implications of s. 95. The Insurance Co. is to make full payment.
(3.) IN view of the judgment in Chand Kanwar's case (supra), and the subsequent judgment of Supyar's case (supra), the position of law is very clear that in cases of comprehensive insurance, the INsurance Co. is liable to the full extent. In view of the above, it is held that the liability of the Insurance Co. would be to the Full extent and not limited in any manner whatsoever. Another point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the interest is to be paid at the rate of 12% as held by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases. This appears to be justified. However, the amount of interest at the rate of 12% would be paid to the claimants on the amount which remains unpaid so far and not on the amount which has already been paid. ;