The liability of an insurance company for an accident occurring after the commencement of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but where the insurance policy was issued under the old Act of 1939, is governed by the terms of the policy issued under the old Act.

Loknath Prasad, J.

1. M.A. Nos. 199 to 202 of 1994 (R) were taken up together as all these four appeals had arisen from the common judgment dated 29.6.1994 passed by Mr. B.K. Sinha, 2nd Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal thereby and there under the M.J.C. Case Nos. 22 to 25 of 1989 were disposed of by the common judgment by the Tribunal and compensation was allowed in part. This common judgment will dispose of all these four appeals.

2. The fact in short for the purpose of these appeals is that one Upendra Jha along with his wife Geeta Jha and two minor sons, namely, Chintu Jha aged 10 years and Mintu Jha aged 6 years were going together after hiring a Tempo van bearing registration No. BPT 6184 on 21.1.1989 towards Jamshedpur side from Gamaria. When the Tempo reached near dairy farm on Gamaria-Jamshedpur road then at about 9 a.m. or so Matador bearing No. BPJ 873 came from behind with a great speed and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Matador it dashed against the Tempo from behind at such a speed and that too on the side of the road killing all the four occupants on the spot. Immediately F.I.R. bearing Adityapur P.S. Case No. 14 dated 21.1.1989 was instituted as against the driver of the Matador and dead bodies were recovered and were sent for post-mortem examination. All the four deceased were the members of a family and they died leaving behind only two daughters, Archana Kumari who is now major and one Bandana Kumari, a minor. These claimants who are the daughters of the deceased, Upendra Jha and his wife and sisters of two brothers who died in the accident, preferred as many as four claim cases bearing M.J.C. Nos. 22 to 25 of 1989 and in all the cases similar case was made out. In M.J.C. No. 22 of 1989 for the accidental death of their mother Geeta Devi they claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 whereas in M.J.C. No. 23 of 1989 and M.J.C. No. 24 of 1989 regarding the death of their brothers Mintu Jha aged 6 years and Chintu Jha aged 10 years who were merely school students, they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 each. Similarly in M.J.C. No. 25 of 1989 Rs. 7,20,000 due to death of their father Upendra Jha and it has been claimed that Upendra Jha was working under the ex-landlord of Jharia and was aged about 40 years or so and his monthly income was about Rs. 2,500 and the claimants are the sole dependants.

3. The claim case was preferred as against the respondent No. 1, Dukhu Ho who is the owner of the Matador vehicle and respondent No. 4, Nukul Naik, driver of the vehicle and against the insurance company who is the appellant. The owner and the driver neither appeared nor contested all these four claim cases before the Tribunal. The insurance company contested all the four cases and it was admitted that Matador was insured with this company and the company has taken various technical issues regarding maintainability and further a plea was taken that the driver of the Tempo was also negligent and above all it was contended that the Matador vehicle was insured under the old Act of 1939 and so in view of the provision of Sec. 95 their liability is only limited.

4. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of claimants so far as M.J.C. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1989 regarding the death of two school going children, the brothers of the claimants, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000 each. So far as in M.J.C. No. 22 of 1989 regarding the death of Geeta Devi, mother of the claimants, a sum of Rs. 58,000 was awarded as compensation and in M.J.C. No. 25 of 1989 regarding death of father of the claimants a sum of Rs. 2,46,000 was awarded besides the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till the realisation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order awarding compensation the insurance company preferred all these four appeals as against the claimants who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also against the owner