The liability of an insurance company in respect of an accident involving a goods vehicle is limited to Rs. 50,000.00 in all, as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Both these appeals involve common questions of law and fact and having arisen from the same judgment they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. M.A. No. 215 of 1982 arises out of a judgment and award dt. 21-6-82 passed by Sri R.L. Bhagat, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 18 of 1982 which was filed by the respondents 1 to 5 thereof.

4. M.A. No. 216 of 1982 arises out of a judgment and award of the same date in Claim Case No. 19 of 1981 which was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 thereof.

5. On 29-5-1981 a truck bearing registration No. OSC 2316 was passing through Swami Vivekanand Path situate in the town of Bhagalpur. The said vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in a most rash and negligent manner as a result whereof an accident occurred wherein one Raghubir Rajak and one Lakshmi Narayan Sarkar were killed. The manner in which the accident took place as also the place of occurrence had been discussed in details in the judgment of the learned Court below and for the purpose of disposal of these appeals it is not necessary to reiterate the same over again.

6. The claimants of claim Case No. 18 of 1981 were granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 80,000.00 whereas the Claimants of Claims Case No.19 of 1981 were granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 90,000/-by the learned Court below and the respondents meaning thereby the Insurance Company, the owner of the driver and the others were directed to pay the said amount jointly and severally. It was further declared that the claimants of both the cases would also be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the sum awarded as compensation.

7. Against the aforementioned award these appeals have been filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company who was the insurer of the aforementioned vehicle.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three fold contentions : - Firstly the learned counsel contended that the amount awarded by the learned Court below by way of compensation to the claimants are excessive. Secondly the learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence to show that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. Learned counsel lastly submitted that in any event taking into consideration the provision as contained in S.95(2) of Motor Vehicles Act it must be held that the liability of the insurer in respect of an accident was to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 in all and the award against the appellant beyond the said amount was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to Om Prakash Dalmia V/s. Smt. Bina Saha, reported in AIR 1984 Pat 77, Sobha Jain V/s. Bihar. State Tribal Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, reported in AIR 1983 Pat 39 and National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi V/s. Jugal Kishore, reported in AIR 1988 SC 719.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the appeal on behalf of the Insurance Company, so far as points Nos. 1 and 2 as referred to hereinbefore are concerned is not maintainable as the same does not come within the purview of S.96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the extent of the liability of the insurer as mentioned in S.95(2) of the M.V. Act so far as a motor vehicle carrying goods is concerned, the same is not restricted to a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 in case of a pedestrian. Learned counsel has relied upon British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Captain Itbar Singh reported in AIR 1959 SC 1331 and National Insurance Co. V/s. Magikhaia Das reported in AIR 1976 Orissa 175 (FB).

11. Section 96 of the M.V. Act provides for the duty of insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Sub-sec.(2) of S.96 of the Act reads as follows