The liability of the insurance company for third party liability is unlimited where a higher premium is charged to cover such liability.

D. C. DALELA, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 7 preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) seeking compensation from the appellant, the owner of the vehicle and the respondent no. 8, driver of the vehicle and the respondent No. 9, insurer of the vehicle for the death of Hari Ram in the accident dated 13. 7. 1988 involving the vehicle in question. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,22,200, the liability of the insurer, respondent No. 9, was made limited to Rs. 1,50,000 and for the remaining amount, the owner appellant was made liable along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the claim petition, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 30. 3. 1991 the owner appellant has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) I have heard the arguments of both the sides.

( 3 ) AT the request of the claimants, the proceedings against the driver were dropped. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that since the driver has been dropped from the claim petition, the award is not maintainable against the owner. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The liability of the owner does not cease because a driver has not been made a party to the claim petition or has been dropped in the petition. I am fortified by the decisions in Badri Narain Prasad v. Anil kumar Gupta, AIR 1979 Pat 204 and babu Singh v. Champa Devi, 1974 ACJ 168 (Allahabad ). In these decisions, it has been held that the liability of the owner does not cease because the driver has not been made a party to the claim and the claim petition against the owner and the insurer without joining the driver, is maintainable.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability of the insurance company, respondent No. 9 cannot be limited to Rs. 1,50,000 only, as held by the learned Tribunal. The insurance company should be made liable to pay the entire amount of the compensation, along with interest, to the claimants, along with the appellant. It has been admitted before me at Bar that premium of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company for the liability to public risk. It has also been admitted before me at Bar, that rs. 200 were the premium at the relevant time, chargeable for the act only policy, while the premium of Rs. 240 has been charged in this case for liability to third party public risk.

( 5 ) THUS, an extra premium of Rs. 40 was charged by the insurance company for covering the liability of death and bodily injury of third party. In my opinion, the liability of the insurance company would not be as per the act only policy but would be unlimited. In the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukmani Devi, DB civil Special Appeal No. 148 of 1998 and other two connected special appeals, a division Bench of this court, vide its judgment dated 26. 11. 1998 has held as under:". . . IT was found by the court that the premium paid to the insurance company for liability to the public risk was rs. 240. The ordinary payment for act only liability is Rs. 200 for covering the said risk. Thus, the insurance company was paid extra premium for the liability to the public risk and the only inference which can be drawn that Rs. 40 were charged extra for covering the liability of death and bodily injury of the third party accepting the unlimited liability in respect of the death and bodily injuries of the third party. "

( 6 ) IN another case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari Kishan, DB Civil special Appeal No. 72 of 1998 and other connected special appeal, another Division bench of this court vide its judgment dated 5. 5. 1998 has again held that where a sum of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company to cover the third party liability which premium is more than the act only premium of Rs. 200, the liability of the insurance company would not be as per the act only policy but would