The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, determining the limited liability of the insurance company to Rs.50,000 and the liability for payment of interest on the awarded amount.

D.N. UPADHYAY, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27th November, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-7th-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih in connection with Claim Case No.13 of 1986, whereby the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.3.23 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realization of the said amount.

2. The fact, in brief, is that the claimant-Ishwar Chandra Mishra on the date of incident i.e. on 14th May, 1986 was aged about 26 years. He was working under Bank of India at Giridih Branch. He was getting salary @ Rs.2,305/-per month from the employer-Bank of India.

On 14th May, 1986, at about 5:00 p.m. said Ishwar Chandra Mishra along with his companion-Ashok Kumar was coming from Bank of India, Doranda Branch on Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.BRY/5075 via JamuaKoderma Road. When the claimant reached near village Sakritand, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, one Mahindra Jeep, bearing Registration No.BHM 8238, being driven rashly and negligently, caused dash to the motorcycle to which the claimant was driving. As a result, the claimant and his companion sustained serious injuries. Multiple fracture caused to the right leg (Tibia-Fibula). The impact of the dash was so grave that bone of the claimant broken into pieces and he sustained compound fracture and to that effect, Jamua P.S. Case No.74 of 1986 was registered on 14th May, 1986 under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against driver of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No.BHM 8238. The motorcycle, on which the claimant was riding, and the offending vehicle, both, were insured with National Insurance Company Limited (appellant). The claimant was treated in nearby hospital, then referred to Sadar Hospital, Giridih and for better treatment he approached various hospitals of the country. The claimant incurred huge expenses on his treatment and also remained absent from his duty due to injuries caused.

Initially the claim application was filed for grant of compensation for an amount of Rs.01.00 lac, but after amendment it was enhanced to Rs.11,55,000/-.

3. The respondents appeared after service of notice and filed their respective show cause and written statement.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground of limited liability as appearing under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act 1939'), which fix a limited liability to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Besides the above, it is contended that the appellant is not liable to pay interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim application because the matter has not been delayed by him at any occasion. The Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application. As a matter of fact, it was the claimant who had delayed the disposal of the case because the claimant had closed his evidence only in the month of February, 2004, whereas the claim case was filed in the year 1986.

5. By referring the provision of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act 1939, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal has completely lost its site of the evidence and the provision and has erroneously held that the liability of insurer is unlimited and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.

The appellant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent has opposed the argument and submitted, there was comprehensive policy granted against the vehicle by the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal has discussed the provisions of the Act 1939 and after elaborate discussion on the point of law as well as facts has decided the claim made by the claimant/responden