P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) O. P. No. 19 of 1975 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chiltoor, was filed by one Pogaku Parvathamma, wife of Venkatrayappa, Madanapalle, Chittoor Dist. , claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 for the injuries caused to her by reason of an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of a bus, APC 6311 near Sanatorium Church of Madanapalle on 1-8-1974.

( 2 ) THE petitioners case was that she was travelling in the aforesaid bus white going to her village Chinnathippa Samudram. While the bus was proceeding to that village, it turned turtle near Sanatorium Church, Madanapalle, when the petitioner was injured all over her forehead. Her lower tooth in the lower jaw was broken and another had become loose. The petitioner issued a notice to the bus owner, K. Narayana Reddy and to the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. , Madras on 23-8-1974 claiming the aforementioned compensation. Having received no satisfactory reply, she filed the aforesaid O. P. against the two respondents. It may be mentioned here that the aforementioned bus was insured with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company under an Insurance Policy, Ext. P-3 dated 19-11-1973. That policy covered the loss to the bus and also what is generally known as a third-party risk. So far as the loss to the bus was concerned, the liability of the insurer was limited to a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00. So far as the third-party risk was concerned, no specified amount was mentioned. But it was stated: "subject to the limits of liability, the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants case and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of : (i) death 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 unloading) of the motor vehicle. " The Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, by its order dated 27-6-1979 upheld the claim of the petitioner, but awarded only Rs. 12,000. 00with proportionate costs towards compensation payable by the owner of the bus (1st respondent) and the insuring company (2nd respondent ).

( 3 ) AGAINST this order and award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, the owner of the bus filed no appeal. But the Insurance Company which had insured the bus not only against any loss or damage that might occur to it, but also against third-party risk had preferred this appeal. To this appeal, both the victim of the accident as well as the owner of the bus have been made parties.

( 4 ) MR. Ugle, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that under Section 95 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, the Act) the liability of the insurer is limited only to Rs. 5,000. 00 for each individual passenger travelling in, any vehicle other than a motor cab and that thereafter the lower Courts direction that a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 awarded as compensation should be recovered both from the owner of the bus as well as from the insurer is clearly erroneous and contrary to the statutory provisions. In other words, Mr. Ugle argued that this client should have been made liable only to an extent of Rs. 5,000. 00 as prescribed by Section 95 (2) of the Act and beyond that amount liability to pay the compensation amount rests solely with the owner of the bus, who is the only other respondent. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. v. N. I. T. Insurance Co. , AIR 1971 SC 1624, I think this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant must be accepted, ruling out any other interpretation, which appears to be not wholly impossible on the somewhat involved language of Section 95 of the Act.

( 5 ) BUT the question is whether that relief can be granted in this insurers appeal ? Section 94 of the Act, which occurs in Chapter VIII of the Act and deals with insurance of motor vehicl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document