( 1 ) THIS First Appeal arises out of the judgment and award pronounced by the Ld. M. A. C. Tribunal No. l at Bharuch in m. A. C. Case No. 34 of 1979, awarding the total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the claimants together with the cost and interest. The award says that the insured, namely The United Fire and. General insurance Co. Ltd. would also be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

( 2 ) DECEASED Govindbhai was travelling by an auto-rickshaw bearing No. CTA-786 on 28-1-1979 and the above-said rickshaw was going towards Piraman Naka from ankleshwar Railway station. It appears that when the auto-rickshaw had reached near to Rasdhara Cold Drink House, near the curve, it had to negotiate the curve on the road and, at that time, the auto-rickshaw had collided with a horse-drawn carriage. The deceased govindbhai has sustained grave injuries and he had died on the spot. Ultimately the applicants who happen to be the widow and the four minor children of the deceased alongwith the father of the deceased also had filed the MAC Case for obtaining the total compensation in sum of rs. 1,30,000/ -. The Tribunal after the appreciation of the evidence on record had reached the conclusion that the applicants were entitled to the total compensation of rs. 70,000/- together with the proportionate cost and the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The insurance policy was produced and proved before the tribunal and on the appreciation of the same and especially after appreciating the endorsement No. l3 (b) with the blank gaps in the insurance policy the Ld. Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the insurance company was not able to establish that their liability was a limited one. In view of this position the insurance company has been made liable jointly and severally for the entire awarded amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 11-1-1980 and the consequent award that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely the insurer.

( 3 ) MR. M. I. Patel the L. A. appears on behalf of the appellant, while the respondent No. 8 has been represented by the Ld. Advocate Mr. G. D. Bhatt. Mr. M. K. Chavda the L. A. appears for the respondents No. 1 to 6. The respondent no. 7 is served.

( 4 ) MR. Patel the L. A. who appears on behalf of the appellant, the insurance company, has contended that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in coining to the conclusion that the liability of the insurance company would be an unlimited one. Mr. Patel has urged that when the reference is made to the policy of insurance at Ex. 47 it becomes clear that an additional premium of Rs. 45/- has been paid for covering the risks of three passengers and that even if the blanks have been kept open in endorsement No. 13 (b) attached to and forming part of the policy, it cannot be urged that the liability of the insurance company would be an unlimited one. Mr. Patel has also tried to urge that when certain blanks have not been filled in and when they have been kept open the tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the wider risk has not been accepted and that, therefore the liability of the insurance company would be limited one.

( 5 ) BUT Mr. G. D. Bhatt the L. A. who appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8 has urged that the Ld. tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited because if the liability was intended to be limited, a specific mention of the same ought to have been made in the endorsement No. 13 (b) attached to the policy. Mr. Bhatt has also further contended that because the necessary figures have not been filled in, in the endorsement No. 13 (b) attached to the policy it can never be urged that there was contract between the insurer and the insured under which the limited liability was accepted. Mr. Bhatt has also urged that in the instant case, because the blank