The liability of an insurance company under a policy of insurance covering risk in respect of death or injury to third person is not limited to Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger, but is subject to the overall limit prescribed in Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THE only short question that has been raised in these two appeals heard analogously, viz. , Nos. 406 and 407 of 1980, arising out of the decision of the Claims Tribunal Judge, dated 18th September, 1979, is the extent of liability of the appellant insurance company. It has been urged that in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the upper limit of liability of an insurer cannot exceed Rs. 5,000/- in anyone accident, involving a vehicle carrying passengers.

( 2 ) IT is an admitted position that following an accident on 19. 6. 1977, involving passenger bus No. WWB 2226, in the district of Midna-pore, two claim petitions were filed before the Claims Tribunal Judge, Midnapore, one in respect of deceased passenger, Hemanta Kumar Samanta, travelling by the said bus and the other in respect of a helper employee, Binoy Krishna Ghanta, of the offending bus meeting the same fate. Both the claim petitions were tried and heard analogously and disposed of by the same judgment by the Tribunal Judge, awarding compensation of Rs. 45,000/-to the heirs of the deceased passenger and Rs. 27,000/- in respect of the helper employee.

( 3 ) THE findings of the Tribunal Judge on the points of incident, death of the persons concerned and negligence in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time have not been questioned or pressed before us. The only points that have been urged are the extent of liability of the appellant insurance company and denial of such liability for the deceased helper as an employee of the bus in question.

( 4 ) IT may be stated at the very outset that we have no reason to take a different view in the matter and finding recorded by the Tribunal Judge for very cogent reasons as given by him, on the point that deceased Binoy Krishna was an employee who used to draw a salary of Rs. 300/- per month and we confirm the same.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the question and the extent of liability of the appellant insurance company, it will be convenient to place the relevant provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the main thrust in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Sub-clause (4) of Section 95 (2) (b), the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed a sum of Rs. 5,000/-for the death or injury to any one passenger. Section 95. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or. . . , and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)- (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely- (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,- (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) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.

( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the deceased Hemanta Kumar Samanta was a