The statutory minimum liability of an insurance company under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not prevent the parties from contracting for a larger insurance coverage, and the insurer can recover any excess amount paid beyond its liability from the insured party under Section 96(4).

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose oftwo First Appeal from Orders (FAO No. 96 and 104 of 1974) arising outof the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 30thnovember, 1973 by which it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 32,000. 00 tothe legal representatives of the deceased against respondents 1, 2 and 4jointly and severally. The first mentioned appeal has been filed by theinsurance Company for reduction of award and the second mentionedappeal by the claimants for its enhancement.

( 2 ). The material facts of the case are that Shri N. R. Adyanthaya (deceased was a Scientist employed in National Institute of Oceoniography,council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Education andwas at the material time drawing a salary of Rs 872. 40. At the time ofthe accident, he was driving his scooter and got involved in an accidentwith a bus bearing No DLP 3383 which was owned by respondent No. 6and was being driven by Mohindar Singh, respondent No. 5. The accidenttook place at about 4. 30 p. m. at Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg on 6/09/1966 and the deceased was thrown off the seat a long distanceaway and received about 15 injuries as a result of which he died on thethe same day in the Irwin Hospital. His legal representatives made a claimfora sum of Rs. 3,50,000. 00 for award of compensation. During thetrial of the claim, the insurance company which had insured the offendingmotor vehicle had been taken over by the Oriental Fire and Generalinsurance Co. , (appellant in the appeal No. 96 of 1974 ). The Municipalcorporation of Delhi was also impleaded in the proceedings as respondentno. 3 on the ground that the aforesaid offending bus was working forits Delhi Transport Undertaking on the basis of some contract with them. The claim petition was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, thefollowing issues were framed ,-

"1. Whether the accident resulting into death of Shri Nitteranganath Adyanthaya was due to rash and negligent driving onthe part of respondent No. 1 ?2. Whether respondent No. 3 is vicariously liable for the legal tortcommitted by respondent No. 1 ?3. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased ?4. To what amount if any, are the petitioners entitled ?5. Whether respondent No. 1 had a valid driving licence ? If notits effect ?6. Whether the vehicle was being operated without any permit or incontravention of the purpose of the permit if any, if so its, effecton the liability of the Insurance Co. ?7. What is the maximum liability of the Insurance Co. ?8. Relief,"

( 3 ). The Claims Tribunal after examining the entire evidence onrecord came to the conclusion that the accident had occured due to therash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending busand the first issue was answered in the affirmative. With regard to issueno. 2, it came to the conclusion that the Municipal Corporation of Delhirespondent No. 3 was not vicariously liable for the tort and omissions ofthe driver or the owner of the offending bus. With regard to issue No. 3,the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants namely the widow andsons of the deceased were his legal representatives, entitled to receivecompensation. With regard to issue No. 5, it held that the driver was inpossession of a valid driving licence. With regard to issue No. 6, thetribunal held that the burden of establishing the said issue was on theinsurance Company which did not lead any evidence and so it did notfind any merit in the allegation that the offending bus had been operatedwithout any permit or contrary to terms of the permit and the issue wasanswered in the negative. With regard to issue No, 7, the Tribunal observedin paragraph 22 that the respondents had not brought to the notice of thetribunal any law or authority laying down the maximum liability of theinsurance Company in such cases. It, therefore, came to the conclusion thatinsurance Company was jointly liable to pay the awarded amount and itdecided the