K.Kannan, J.

1. The appeal is on the issue of liability for the Insurance Company which contends that since the deceased was travelling in a rickshaw and was a third party to a passenger bus, in terms of Section 95(2)(i), the liability for a persono other than a passenger carried for hire or reward shall be Rs.50,000/- only. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.96,000/- and had directed the entire amount to be recovered against the Insurance Company.

2. I have no doubt in my mind mat the reading of the Section by the Tribunal was erroneous as regards the liability for a person other than a passenger. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend mat the sub-section must be read in such a way that the restriction of liability must be understood to apply onry for persons, who are driver or conductor and for a third party it is always unlimited liability. The learned counsel refers me to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and another v. Gurnam Kaur and others, (2007-2)146 P.L.R. 238 to contend that the limited liability for an Insurance Company qua third parry cannot be inferred by the provisions of Section 95(2)(l)(c);, I respectfully differ with the view expressed in the