IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limited Liability--Mere fact that the insured has taken a comprehensive policy, does not lead to an inference that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured of the entire awarded amount including the amount in excess of the statutory liability.
Accident--Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the awarded amount with liberty to recover the amount in excess of the statutory liability from the insured.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of bunch of appeals placed before this Bench on a Reference made by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.1988 as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.15,000/- per passenger or unlimited under the provisions of Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act).

2. The said order passed by the Division Bench reads as under :-

"The main case taken up on urgent motion. It is contended by Mr. Suri that the words "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939", occurring in the insurance policy intend to cover the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and since sub-clause (b) thereof would apply to the instant case, the liability of the insurance company was upto Rs.15,000/- for each individual passenger. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pt. Ram Parkash and others v. Smt. Kanta Suri and another, 1987(2) FIR 169, where this provision came to be specifically interpreted and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chand Kanwar v. Manaram, 1986 ACJ 269 : (AIR 1986 Raj 2) was distinguished. The term in the insurance policy being comprehensive enough would come to meet the requirements of any other provision of the Motor Vehicles Act as well. It is noticeable that Chapter VIII of the said Act covering insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risk has in it not only Section 95 but Section 110-B as well and under Section 110-B the power of the claims tribunal to award compensation is not curtailed in any manner. We are prima facie of the view that the aforequoted entry in the insurance policy is wide enough to bring within its ambit such liability as may be required to be met under Section 110-B of the Act. Admitted F.B."

3 The present reference arises as a Division Bench of this Court in Pt. Ram Parkashs case (supra) has taken a view that the Insurance Company has limited liability in respect of the passenger of a motor vehicle. The correctness of the said judgment was doubted by the Division Bench of this Court in the order mentioned above, primarily on the basis of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chand Kanwars case, (AIR 1986 Raj 2) (supra), that since the policy issued by the Insurance Company is comprehensive, it is to meet the requirement of any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured of the entire liability. Before we examine the respective contentions of the patties, the brief facts from FAO No. 410 of 1988 out of which the said Reference has arisen, need be stated.

4. A private bus bearing registration No. RSO 2850 owned by one Shashi Kant Gupta met with an accident on 19.4.1986 at about 7.00 a.m. in the area of village Gadhauli, Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). Many passengers died while others received multiple injuries. As many as 28 claim applications were preferred to claim compensation either by the legal heirs on account of death of the passengers or by the injured in respect of the injuries received in the said motor vehicular accident. The owner of the bus denied that there was any negligence of the driver in causing the accident, whereas the Insurance Company, the present appellant, raised a plea that its liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger.

5. The learned Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the bus driver. It also found that the liability of the Insurance Company is not limited as there is difference between the Insurance Policy produced by the owner of the vehicle and that by the Insurance Company and there is no limit mentioned against the heading limits of liability. Even in the Endorsement IMT-13, the columns have been left blank. Thus, the Tribunal found that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the entire li