The Insurance Company's liability for motor accident compensation is not limited to the amount specified in Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, unless a specific plea and policy record are presented. Amendments to pleadings at the appellate stage should be allowed judiciously to prevent injustice, especially in welfare laws like motor accident compensation cases.

1. In an accident between a motor cycle and the truck PUN 1781 coming from the opposite direction, Ram Singh, who was driving the motor cycle, was killed while the pillion rider Gian Singh sustained serious injuries. This happened on June 20, 1977, at about 4 p.m. on the road between Chandigarh and S.A.S. Nagar.

2. It was the finding of the Tribunal that it was the truck driver who was wholly to blame for this accident. A sum of Rs.1,08,000/- was awarded as compensation to the widow and children of Ram Singh deceased while Rs.36,000/- were awarded to Gian Singh for the injuries suffered by him in this accident.

3. In appeal here, the challenge in the first instance was to the order of the Tribunal of Mar. 20, 1980, whereby the evidence of the respondents was closed and thereafter the impugned award was announced. The contention of Mr. L. M, Suri, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, being that as counsel had abstained from appearing in Court on that date in pursuance of a call to this effect by the Bar Association, there was obviously sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte proceedings taken on that date.

4. Applications for setting aside the ex parte award were filed before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company as also the truck driver. These were dismissed by the Tribunal by its order of Aug. 28, 1980. No exception can indeed be taken to this order. A reference to the record would show that both the truck driver as also the Insurance Company had closed their evidence on Nov. 29, 1979. The case was then adjourned for the evidence of the truck owner and the Bank of India to Jan. 10,1980. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was absent on that date and the case was accordingly adjourned to Jan. 14, 1980, on which date it was adjourned to Feb. 14,1980, for the evidence of the truck owner. On that date again, no evidence was summoned by the Truck owner nor present and the case was then adjourned to Mar. 20, 1980, with the specific direction that it shall be the responsibility of truck owner and the Bank of India to produce their evidence on the adjourned date.

5. The position that now emerges is that both the parties, namely, the truck driver and the Insurance Company who had applied for the setting aside of the ex parte proceedings had already closed their evidence before the date when the order to this effect was passed. As regards the Bank of India, no relief was granted against it, and it cannot, therefore, be said to be aggrieved by this order in any manner. Similar is the position of the truck owner. Indeed, the counsel for the truck owner admitted that there was no further evidence to be led on his behalf. This being the situation, there is clearly no warrant for interfering with the order of the Tribunal of Mar. 20, 1980, that the respondents be proceeded against ex parte.

6. Coming now to the merits of the case, the finding on the issue of negligence warrants no interference in appeal. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling on his correct side of the road when the truck coming from the opposite direction at a very fast speed suddenly went to its wrong side and hit into the motor cycle. The truck driver, owner as also the Insurance Company, on the other hand, accused the deceased of having brought his motor-cycle on to the wrong side of the road and striking it against the truck.

7. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of the injured claimant P.W. 7 Gian Singh and P.W. 10 Harnek Singh, who lodged the first information report regarding this incident. It was the consistent testimony of both these witnesses that the motor cycle was on its correct side of the road when the truck came on its wrong side and hit into it. Counsel could point to no contradictions or discrepancies to create any doubt in their testimony. Important corroboration to this version is provided by the first information report Exhibit P.C., which was recorded on the statement of P.W. 10 Harnak Singh a