An insurance company that charges a premium for public risk accepts unlimited liability for third-party claims, even if the policy is described as 'Act only'.

1. - Harbans Kaur and claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition on account of the death of Avatar Singh in an accident that took place on 20.9.1985. The appellant is the owner of the offending truck No. RNE 1423 and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the driver and insurer of the said truck. During the proceedings of the claim petition, Harbans Kaur has died and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 pursued the claim petition. It has been alleged that the deceased Avatar Singh was going in his own truck which had full load of bananas from Indore to Amritsar. On 20.9.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. near Baroni Police Station, another truck bearing No. RNE 1423 came from the opposite direction and hit the truck of the deceased on the wrong side of the road resulting in severe injuries to Avatar Singh, who died in consequence thereof. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 10.3.1992 held that the accident was the result of the sole negligence of respondent No. 7 who was driving the offending vehicle and it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,60,000 to the claimants. The liability of insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 only. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant owner of the offending truck has preferred this appeal.

2. The claimants-respondents have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the total compensation.

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

4. Upon considering the oral submissions made at Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties and the award of the learned Claims Tribunal, I find myself generally in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 that the accident took place on account of the sole negligence and rashness of respondent No. 7 who was driving the offending vehicle No. RNE 1423 and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. From the site-plan, Exh. 4, it is evident that the offending truck hit the truck of the deceased on its wrong side of the road. This goes to clearly indicate that the rashness and negligence were on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the deceased. From the site-plan, Exh. 4, it is further clear that the offending vehicle was found lying in the pit towards its wrong side of the road, while the truck of the deceased has been shown to have been standing on the kacha of its right side of the road. This situation clearly indicates that the rashness and negligence were of the offending vehicle and not on the part of the vehicle of the deceased. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly and correctly decided the issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent No. 7, the driver of the offending vehicle, and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. No interference is, therefore, called for in this regard.

5. From the copy of the insurance policy filed before the learned Tribunal, it is found 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 time chargeable for the 'Act only' policy, while the premium of Rs. 240 is chargeable in case of liability to third party public risk. This, in my opinion, means that extra premium of Rs. 40 was charged by the insurance company for covering the liability for the death or bodily injury of the third party, and as such, the liability of the offending vehicle would not be as per Act, but would be unlimited. In the case of Draupadi Devi v. Incler 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 i