- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 27.7.2007 passed by Addl.District Judge-cum-Spl. Judge-cum-Addl. Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.137/1989, whereby liability to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,79,500/- was fastened upon owner with a direction to Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the accident took place on 23.4.1989 and as such the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 is applicable and in terms of Section 95(2) the insurance company liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/- only, even in case of a Comprehensive Insurance Policy, in the absence of any specific agreement and nonpayment of separate premium to cover third party risk. It is urged that the insurance company can not be held liable to pay any amount higher than the statutory amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. C.M.Jaya, 2002 2 SCC 278. It is argued that the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate that Rs. 240/- paid as extra premium towards Comprehensive Policy cannot in any way be interpreted to mean that additional premium was paid for covering third party risk. On the said ground, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned order whereby the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount is against the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and in the teeth of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.M. Jaya .
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has submitted that the learned court below has considered the decisions which has been relied upon by the appellant-Insurance Company. It is contended that the respondent-claimant had preferred M.A. No.362 of 2007 for enhancement of the compensation amount and the Division Bench of this Court had upheld the award and did not interfere with the findings of the court below. Learned counsel while relying on the decision in the case of Dilip Kumar Saha v. Runnv Sarkar & Anr, 1995 ACJ 353 has submitted that in similar circumstances in the said decision it was held that when the owner paid Rs. 240/- as the premium covering liability to public risk whereas for coverage of Act only liability the premium payable under the tariff was only Rs. 200/-. It was held that the respondent-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the entire liability in respect of the claim. In the said decision the provisions of Section II(1) (a) of the policy was considered regarding liability towards third party.;