The insurance company's liability for third-party death and bodily injury is unlimited if it has charged a premium higher than the act only premium, indicating acceptance of unlimited liability.

D. C. DALELA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the same award and the same accident, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the claimant Vishnu veer alias Bhola (appellant of S. B. Civil misc. Appeal No. 854 of 1994 and the respondent No. 1 in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1033 of 1994) and his other friends were standing near old bus station in Deeg, suddenly, bus No. RRA 2222 driven by Ramavtar (respondent No. 3 in s. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854 of 1994 and respondent No. 2 in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1033 of 1994) rashly and negligently hit the claimant due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated. The claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Deeg (for short the Tribunal ). The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 30. 5. 1994, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,52,000 against Hari Kishan and ramji Lal, owners of the bus (appellants in Appeal No. 1033 of 1994 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 854 of 1994), but, fixed the liability of the insurance company (respondent No. 3 in Appeal no. 1033 of 1994 and respondent No. 4 in appeal No. 854 of 1994), to the extent of rs. 50,000 only. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants Hari Kishan and Ramji Lal have preferred Appeal No. 1033 of 1994, while the claimant Vishnu veer alias Bhola has preferred Appeal no. 854 of 1994 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

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

( 4 ) A perusal of the copy of insurance policy, filed before the learned Tribunal, would show that a premium of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company for the liability to public risk. It has been admitted before me at Bar by both the sides that Rs. 200 was the premium at the relevant date chargeable for the act only policy, while the premium of Rs. 240 is chargeable in case of liability to the third party public risk. This, in my opinion, implies that the extra premium of Rs. 40 was charged by the insurance company for covering the liability for the death and bodily injury of the third party, and, as such, liability of the insurance company would not be as per the Act, but would be unlimited. In the case of Draupadi Devi v. Inder Kumar, 1998 ACJ 418 (Rajasthan), this court has held that:"be that as it may, even if we accept that Rs. 200 was the premium for the act only policy and Rs. 240 was the premium for the liability to the public risk, then also it is difficult to hold that rs. 40 were not collected by the insurer for covering the risk of death or bodily injury of the third party. ""the only inference that can be drawn is that Rs. 40 were charged extra for covering the liability for the death or bodily injury of the third party. ""it has to be held that the insurance company had accepted unlimited liability in respect of the death and bodily injury of the third party. "

( 5 ) IN the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Kakkar, 1993 ACT328 (Delhi), it has been held by the Delhi High court that:". . . A sum of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company, respondent no. 2, to cover the third party liability which premium is more than the act only premium of Rs. 200, as such, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the liability of insurance company would not be as per the Act which is Rs. 1,50,000 but would be unlimited. "

( 6 ) IN the instant case, a premium of rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company to cover the liability to public risk which is higher than the act only premium of Rs. 200. Therefore, in view of the above decisions, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited, and, the insurance company is, therefore, liable to meet out all third party liability claims and the insurance company cannot avoid the liability to pay the awarded amount to the claiman