HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against, the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. The Insurance Company disputes the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant for the accident which took place in the morning of 7-6-1974 near Sessai in the district of Ranchi when a passenger bus bearing registration No. BRV 2961 met with an accident due to its front wheel brusting and loss of control over the vehicle resulting in the fall of the bus into a roadside ditch causing death and injury to several passengers.

2. The bus was insured with the Hindustan General Insurance Society, Limited which has been merged in the appellant-company, namely. National Insurance Company. Limited. The carrying capacity of this bus was 49 passengers including the driver. Chhunnu Ram, respondent No. 1 aged about 48 years who was also travelling in the same bus, sustained serious injuries in his left hand and leg resulting in amputation of his leg. He made a claim of Rs. 20,000.00 on the basis of his earning of Rs. 400.00 per month and the learned Judicial Commissioner, on the basis of monthly saving of Rs. 150.00 for his family members and taking 12 years as his future earning capacity, awarded the entire claim of Rs. 20,000.00 against the insurance Company with interest @ Rs. 6 % per annum.

3. The only point that has been raised before us by Mr. B.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is. that in view of the limitation contained in Section 95 (2) clause (b) (i) (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (briefly the M. V. Act) the liability of the Insurance Company could not extend beyond rupees five thousand in terms of the policy of the Insurance Company (Ext.1 ).

4. Section 95 of the M. V. Act deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. I would do better to extract cl.(b) of sub-sec.(2) of Sec.95:

"(b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward "or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment,- (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;

(ii) in respect of passengers,- (1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers;

(2) a limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers;

(3) a limit of one Lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers; and

(4) subject to the limits aforesaid ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case;"

5. Learned counsel further contended that sub-cl. (4) of cl. (b) provides the limit of five thousand rupees for an individual passenger; in case he was travelling in any kind of vehicle other than a motor cab irrespective of the nature of injury sustained by him.

6. It is, no doubt, true that the provisions of sub-sec.(2) are enacted to safeguard the interest of the insurer who is at liberty to raise any one of the objections permissible to him under this provision and avoid his liability. Prior to the 1969 amendment, the limits per individual passenger were rupees two thousand if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers (total liability of Rs. 20,000) and rupees four thousand if the vehicle was registered to carry not more than six passengers.

7. The expression any liability incurred in respect of any one accident were considered by the various High Courts and it was held to prescribe limits in respect of completely insurable risks including third partys risk and fix a limit in relation to the vehicles and make distinction between goods vehicles and the vehicles in which passengers are carried. In respect of vehicles carrying passengers, several distinctions have been made on their different capa