The liability of the insurance company for compensation in case of an accident is limited to Rs.15,000/- as per the statute and there is no contract to the contrary.

ORDER :

1. These two appeals arise out of 0.P. No.90/87 on the file of the 1st Additional District judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. A claim of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by the widow and minor children of the deceased Siddaramappa, who was a resident of Maski village in Raichur District of Karnataka State. The deceased was working as a Motor Mechanic and running a mechanic shop in his village and earning his livelihood and maintaining the claimants. On 18-12-1986 at about 8 p.m. he was trying to board the private bus AAQ 8885 owned by the 6th respondent as on the said date. Previously the said bus was owned by the appellant in C.M.A. No.1827 of 1991. But the same was sold to the 6th respondent under Ex.B-5, dated 24-11-1984. Ex.B-6 is the notification issued regarding the above transfer of vehicle to 6th respondent. As such, it is clear that as on 18-12-1986, the 6th respondent was in possession of the vehicle and was running the same. In that view of the matter, the appellant in C.M.A. No1827/1991 is no way concerned with the accident and he is accordingly exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants. Insofar as the insurance company is concerned, the statute fixes the liability to a maximum of Rs.15,000/- and there is no contract to the contrary. As such, the insurance company's liability cannot be fixed more than the said amount of Rs.15,000/-. While C.M.A. No.1237 of 1992 was filed by the Insurance Company, C.M.A. No.1827 of 1991 was filed by the erstwhile owner of the bus. The present owner of the bus i.e., the 6th respondent in both the appeals, who caused the accident on 18-12-1986 did not choose to file an appeal. Mr. H. Prahlad Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent seeks to contend that inasmuch as the deceased was only. trying to board the bus and did not board the bus actually; he is not a passenger within the definition of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the 6th respondent is not liable to pay any damages. Alternatively it is argued that if the deceased is not a passenger, he is only a third party and then the maximum amount payable by the insurer is Rs.50,000/- and accordingly the said insurer should be directed to pay Rs.50,000/-. At the inception, the 6th respondent, who has not chosen to file an appeal, cannot contend as stated above. This point do notarise for consideration as the contention advanced on behalf of the insurer is that inasmuch as the statute fixes the maximum liability at Rs.15,000/- and there is no contract to the contrary as held by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I am a party, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Khaja . Moinuddin 2, the insurer cannot be mulcted with more liability than the maximum amount. Accordingly, I uphold the contention of Mr. Kota Subbarao, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. As the transfer was already effected, the appeal filed by the erstwhile owner in C.M.A. No.1827 of 1991 has to be allowed. The result is that the present owner of the bus in question i.e., the 6th respondent is the only person who is liable to pay the compensation in excess of Rs.15,000 /-. While the insurer, who is the appellant in C.M.A. No.1237 of 1992 is liable to pay Rs.15,000/ - to the claimants, the balance of Rs.45,000/- is liable to be paid by the present owner of the said vehicle i.e., the 6th respondent. I cannot countenance the contention advanced on behalf of the 6th respondent that as the deceased was trying to board the bus, he was not a passenger. The evidence is clear to the effect that the deceased has placed his feet firmly on the foot-board of the bus and after the bus started running, he fell down and died. It is ununderstandable as to how a person, who boarded the bus and was on the foot-board, which is a part of the bus, cannot be construed as a passenger.

2. In Gobinda Prosad Mukherjee vs. Sujit Bhowmick 2, it was held that a person attempting to board the bus and resting