JUDGMENT :

K.S. JHAVERI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 10.02.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot, in MACP No. 16 & 43 of 1985 whereby the said claim petition was allowed and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 84000/- & Rs. 1,02,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The claim petition was filed in pursuance of an accident which had occurred on 23.11.1984 at about 8.45 pm between near Navagam bridge, when a bus bearing registration no. GTX 3076 collided with the motorcyle on which the deceased Shri Punabhai Surabhai Koli and Sidabhai Koli were travelling. The heirs and legal representatives of said deceased Punabhai filed Claim Petition No. 43/85 and the deceased Sidabhai filed Claim Petition No. 16/85. Both the claim petitions were heard together and the Tribunal passed the aforesaid award.

3. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the policy at Ex. 23 is an Act Policy and in the circumstances the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs. 50000/- only. He has further contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company's liability in respect of persons other than passenger carried for hire or reward is limited to Rs. 50000/-.

3.1 Mr. Parikh in support of his submissions relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and Others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 : 1988 (1) TAC 418 (SC) and submitted that the said decision explains the term 'Comprehensive Insurance' and clarifies that the use of the said term does not convey that the limit of the liability with regard to the third party's risk is unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-sec (2) of section 95 of the M.V. Act.

4. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) has held that It is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured for which a higher premium than for an "act only" policy is payable. Such comprehensive insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle insured. Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, as was done in the instant case do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and additional premium paid. It is further held therein that a perusal of the policy indicates that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle has been confined to "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939", which was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000 only. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability.

5. The relevant part of section 95(2)(b) reads as under:

"95.(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:-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) where the vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, -

(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all,

(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger."

6. A perusal of the said section shows that the liability, is limited to an extent of Rupees fifty Thousand for persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward at the relevant time. The a