The liability of an insurance company for compensation in a motor vehicle accident case is limited to the amount specified in the policy, as per Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

1. - This appeal (Appeal No. 99 of 1986, connected with Appeal No. 101 of 1986) arises from the award given on 24.1.1986 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Case Nos. 374 and 375 of 1983.

2. On 7.11.1983 one Christopher Lodricks was going on his scooter from Ajmeri Gate to Sawai Man Singh Hospital. Yvonne (Evan) Lodricks was the pillion rider on the aforesaid scooter. The claimants alleged that when they reached at the tiraha of Ashok Marg, near Maharani College, Jaipur, a car bearing number RST 549 came from the opposite direction and collided with the scooter; as a result of the accident Christopher died at the spot, whereas the pillion rider sustained injuries.

3. Claiming that the car, driven by Om Prakash, was being driven rashly and negligently, which struck the scooterist on the wrong side, Yvonne (Evan) Lodricks and Christeen Lodricks (claimants-respondents in Appeal No. 99 of 1986) filed a claim petition to recover compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- and Rs. 34,000/- which were claimed on account of the injuries sustained by the pillion rider Yvonne (Evan) Lodricks.

4. The claim was contested by Om Prakash, the driver of the car, as well as the owner of the car, Subhash Dasot and the allegation of reckless driving on the part of the driver was denied as correct. They claimed that the deceased had contributed to the negligence and as such he was guilty of the same.

5. The insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., claimed that there was negligence on the part of the scooterist, as such the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The Tribunal, by its award dated 24.1.1986, held that the accident occurred due to driving of the aforesaid car rashly and negligently by its driver. It awarded a sum of Rs. 79,000/-; out of this amount Rs. 15,000/-had already been given by way of no fault liability. The award was passed jointly and severally against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the driver Om Prakash and the owner Subhash Dasot.

7. Against the aforesaid award Appeal No. 101 of 1986 has been preferred by Yvonne (Evan) Lodricks and Christeen Lodricks; whereas Appeal No. 99 of 1986 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

8. In the appeal of the insurance company the solitary point raised was that under the policy the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, it could be made liable to pay that amount only and not Rs. 79,000/-.

9. The policy of insurance wherein the amount of liability has been stated is as under:

Limits of Liability:

Limit of the amount of the company's liability under Section II-1 (i) in respect of any one accident:

such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

10. Counsel appearing for the insurance company referred to Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is as under:

(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment-

(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;
and, relying on the limits of the liability clause of the policy, along with the aforesaid provision, submitted that the insurance company could not be held liable to pay more than Rs. 50,000/- in all. Hence, the award given against it for Rs. 79,000/- was illegal and wrong.

11. Having heard counsel for the parties it appears to me that the liability of the insurance company prescribed by Section 95 (2) (b) could not be enhanced to more than Rs. 50,000/-. In respect of this amount, on the finding given that the accident resulted on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by Om Prakash, its driver, the Tribunal held the insurance company liable jointly and severally with the owner of the taxi-car. To this extent, the award of the Tribunal holding the insurance company liable to pay Rs. 79,000/- suffers from an apparent error.

12. Coming