The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is liable for the entire compensation amount, and its liability is not limited to the statutory liability fixed under the Act.

K.C. Sharma, J.-Through this appeal under Section 173, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant seek to modify the award dated 011.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,500/-under different heads.

2. On 14.06.1988 at 9.45 P.M., when Daljeet Singh was on way at M.I. Road, Jaipur, a Mini Bus

bearing No. RND 9285 hit him. It was alleged that the driver was driving the Bus rashly and

negligently with excessive speed. As a result of this accident, Daljeet Singh sustained serious injuries

and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries. It was stated that at the time of accident the age of

deceased was 38 years and was posted as driver in Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board. contributory

3. The learned Tribunal having concluded that accident occurred as a result of the Tribunal

negligence of deceased and the driver of said Mini Bus, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.

appears contributory negligence

3 27 000/-and since the accident took plac1 63 500/-thereby making the claimants entitled to get

deducted 50% f the award amount i e as a result of

compensation to 1 63 500Rs It further

4 dL Thfi Cthe tune of Rs that the Tribunal has made liable the

Insurance Company to pay the compensation only to the extent of Rs 50 000/ that the road where accident took place was 60 wide and in between the ro d, there was ivider.

The place where deceased was going on was 7 away from corner of th road nd still 23 wi road

was available f r plying the Mini Bus. In t e position stated abov , the Mini Bus dash d the

deceased from back side. In these circumstances the contributory negligence f the deceased cann t

be held to be pr ved. The Tribunal in my considered view has committ d err r in deducting 50% f

the compensation calculated by it. It must t erefore, be held that the claimants are entitled to

receive the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,27,000/-

5. The second ground of challenge is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability of the respondent Insurance Company only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-by holding it to be the statutory liability fixed under the Act of 1939 learned Counsel submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited and the Insurance Company was liable to meet out all third party liability claim and that the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability to pay the entire award amount to the claimants. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi and Ors. 2005 ACJ 211 and (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hastimal Lodha and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/98 and five connected matters decided on 012.2005.

6. There is no dispute about the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the premium charged by the Insurance Company was in excess of Act only policy and was under heading B Liability to public risk, which was indicated at Rs. 240. The principle, which is well settled from the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, is that merely charging of higher premium or even taking a comprehensive policy does not necessarily cover the third party risk to the unlimited extent unless terms of the policy so provide for.

7. In National Insurance Company vs. Laxmi and Ors, the Division Bench of this Court having

quoted the terms of liability as mentioned in the insurance policy observed: "A perusal of the aforesaid terms shows that under principal clause, the Insurance Company accepted its liability towards third party injuries co-extensive with legal liability of the owner of vehicle. By providing various clauses under provisos it limited its liability to act only liability in respect of matters covered by one or other of the provisos. Under none of the provisos limit of liability towards bodily injury or death caused to a party has been restricted to statutory liability though liability to indem