The liability of an insurance company under a motor vehicle insurance policy is limited to the liabilities covered by the policy.

JUDGMENT:- The short question that arises for determination, in this appeal filed by Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, was justified in its conclusion, recorded in its award dated 10-1-1970, that the Commonwealth Assurance Company Ltd.. Calcutta, was not liable to pay any part of the compensation, adjudged at Rs.4,000/-, made payable to Jiban Chandra Hazarika in respect of the death of the latters son Girish Chandra Hazarika who died on 25-1-1967 in a truck accident.

2. According to the findings reached by the Tribunal the truck No.ASE-2239 belonging to Mahabir Prasad, the appellant herein, was hired by about 52 students, both boys and girls, for a picnic party. The truck was driven by a driver of Mahabir Prasad when on its return journey from Dillighat, where the picnic was enjoyed, to Moranhat, from where the truck was engaged, it turned turtle while negotiating a bend on account of rash and negligent driving. A number of students were thrown out of truck but the unlucky Girish Chandra Hazarika was buried under the truck and crushed to death at the spot. The claimant Jiban Chandra Hazarika impleaded Mahabir Prasad, the owner of the truck, as also the Insurance Company in the claim petition. The total claim made was for Rs.25,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted both by Mahabir Prasad and the Insurance Company on the score, inter alia, that it was deceased and not the driver of the truck who was responsible for the ugly mishap. The company pleaded, in addition, that the motor vehicle being a goods truck the third party risk in respect of a passenger in the truck was not covered by the policy issued by it in favour of the owner of the truck, and as such the company was not obliged in law to share any part of the compensation awarded to the father of the deceased.

4. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs.4,000/- but made it payable exclusively by Mahabir Prasad. In his opinion the Company was not liable since the truck was permitted to be used, in terms of the Insurance Policy, under a Private Carrier Permit within the meaning of the Act, and the policy did not cover use of the truck on hire and that the deceased was carried as a passenger in the truck against the payment of hire.

5. Mahabir Prasad having felt aggrieved with the finding of the Tribunal that the company was immune from any liability arising out of the accident, filed the instant appeal. His counsel, Sri S.K. Sen, urged that since the truck had been insured with the Company and the Tribunal has adjudged that the insurer is liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.4,000/- to the legal representative of the deceased student, the Tribunal went completely wrong in exonerating the Company from the liability to indemnify the insured. Sri P.G. Barua, representing the Company, submitted on the other hand that the Company is not liable to pay any part of the compensation either under the relevant provisions of the Act or in terms of the Insurance Policy. He cited a number of authorities to support his contention.

6. Chapter VIII of the Act is a complete code bearing on the insurance of motor vehicles against third party risk, and the parties counsel were agreed that answer to the controversy raised will have to be found from within the four corners of this Chapter and the insurance policy issued by the company respecting the truck involved in the accident. Section 94 of the Act sternly prescribes that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII. The requirements of the policy are set out in Section 95. Sub-section (1) of that section states tha