Honble TATIA, J.–By these two appeals the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 103/89 has been challenged. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,000/- to the claimants in the said claim. By filing S.B.C.M.A. No. 398/1996, the owner of the vehicle challenged the award because the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of reimbursement of the claim amount beyond the statutory limit by holding that the United India Insurance Company shall be liable to pay only Rs. 15,000/- and not entire amount. In Appeal No. 467/1995 the claimants challenged the award as the Tribunal has not awarded the entire claim as claimed by the claimants and also challenged the finding of the Tribunal fixing limited liability of the said Insurance Company.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.1989, the deceased Kamlesh Kumar was going from Village Rani to Gundoj in Jeep No. RRT-6945. Devendra Kumar was the driver of the vehicle and because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred and in that accident the said Kamlesh Kumar died. Ram Lal, appellant in S.B.C.M.A. No. 398/1996, was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Jeep was insured with the respondent United India Insurance Company. The deceased was of the age of 27 years only and he was doing the business of Gold Smith at Bombay. He was also an income tax assessee and was unmarried. His parents, brother and sister submitted the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,72,000/-. The claimants submitted in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,200/- per month out of which he used to deposit Rs. 1,000/- in his bank account and he was sending Rs. 1,000/- or even Rs. 1,200/- to the claimants because the deceased used to incur expenditure of Rs. 200/- only for himself as he was residing at Bombay with his relative. The claimants, submitted that because of the death of Kamlesh Kumar, they suffered loss of income of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The claimants further claimed certain compensations, which are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals.

(3). So far as the negligence in driving of vehicle by the driver-Devendra Kumar is concerned, it is not seriously in dispute in these appeals. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle is that the respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. According to counsel for the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company took additional premium and, therefore, the entire risk of the passengers traveling in the taxi is covered under the insurance policy issued by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount and liability is not limited as provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even if it is held that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited even then, in view of the various judgments of the Honble Apex Court and of this Court, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the full compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company may be permitted to recover such amount from the owner of the vehicle for which the Insurance Company was not liable as per law. The said argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants- claimants are seriously contested by both the learned counsels for the Insurance Company.

(4). First of all, it is to be seen whether the Insurance Company has charged additional premium to cover the unlimited liability of the passengers of the vehicle? According to learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company charged basic premium of Rs. 180/- whereas the tariff provides the basic premium of Rs. 150/- only. By this, the Insurance Company charged Rs. 30/- in additional to the basic premium and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot take benef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document