( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the judgment and award dated 19. 10. 1993 in m. V. C. No. 547 of 1989 passed by the district Judge and Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Karwar, UK (henceforth in brief as 'the M. A. C. T. ' ). In passing the same, the M. A. C. T. had awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000 as against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000 payable by the respondent No. 2, owner. The appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company on the ground that its liability would have been restricted to Rs. 50,000 in terms of the insurance policy.

( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. Yoganarasimha. The respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. V. P. Kulkarni. The respondent no. 2 having been served with notice had remained absent. The respondent No. 3, claimant is represented by Mr. B. S. Hadimani. I have also perused the case records.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. Yoganarasimha, while taking me through the facts of the case and impugned judgment and award under challenge argued that the M. A. C. T. would not have fastened the liability beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 50,0