The liability of the insurance company in respect of a passenger carrying vehicle is limited to the extent of Rs. 5,000 per passenger as per Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and this liability is not affected by the fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive one.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 12-12-19r/9 passed by Shri Anand Prasad Sinha, Judicial Commissioner, Chotanagpur at Ranchi in Miscellaneous Judicial Claim (Motor Claims Case) No. 122 of 1979 whereby and whereunder the said learned court awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000 in favour of the respondents and against the appellants.

2. The learned Tribunal below has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforementioned amount.

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

4. The applicant who was aged 50 years and used to carry the business of contract, was travelling in a Maxi-Taxi bearing registration No. B. H. V. 6696 from Jameshedpur to Ranchi. The said Maxi Taxi met with an accident by dashing against a brick wall as a result whereof the applicant was thrown out from the said vehicle and received multiple injuries.

5. The applicant has asserted that he at the relevant time was having an income of Rs. 25,000 per month. In the said accident he had sustained the following injuries, as it appears from the judgment of the court below :

(1) Left leg pelvish bone (Ball socket joint) fractured at three places.

(2) Left ear cut into many pieces,

(3) Cut injury in left and right eye brows.

(4) Left arm, shoulder muscles crushed, collar bone broken.

(5) Many other multiple injuries.

(6) Left, leg has become shorter by 2 inches causing permanent disability.

6. According to the applicant he had already spent a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards the treatment. He had further been medically advised either to go to London or to Bombay for the treatment of his hip bone.

7. The learned Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.

8. With regard to the amount of compensation the learned Tribunal below had held that the applicant had been dangerously injured and he had become a practically invalid. According to the learned Tribunal the applicant suffered disablement of a permanent nature.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in favour of the applicant payable by the insurance company.

10. Mr. D. N. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a short question. He submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 95(2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the insurance company in respect of a passenger carrying vehicle is limited to the extent of Rs. 5,000 per passenger. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal below has committed an error in awarding the compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and fastening the entire liability upon the insurer.

11. Mr. Chatterjee drew my attention, in this connection, to various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The said decisions are reported in The Northern India Transporters Insurance Company Limited V/s. Amrawati and Anr. 1988 ACJ 13, Madras Motor & General Insurance Co. Lid V/s. The United India Fire & General Insurance Co, Ltd., 1982 ACJ 460, Maya Devi V/s. Kartar Bus Service Ltd. and Ors. 1987 ACJ 145, Vniiied India Fire & General Insurance Co, Ltd. V/s. Nachu Kaba, 1987 ACJ 469 and National Insurance Co. I.M., New Delhi V/s. Jugal Kishore and Ors. -- .

12. Mr. Biren Poddar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Jadavji Keshavji Modi reported in -- the liability of the insurer in respect of each passenger will be to the extent of Rs. 50,000. The learned counsel, in this connection, has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Chhunu Ram and Anr. reported in -- as also a judgment of mine in the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company V/s. Smt. Panamti Devi and Ors. reported in 1989 PLJR 45. The learned