The main legal point established in the judgment is that liability is not limited by cogent evidence from the policy itself, and the provisions related to the requirements of policies and limits of liability were interpreted to influence the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri B. C. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. By way of this appeal the Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10th May, 1989 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 92 of 1984 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad granting a sum of Rs.33,000/-.

3. Brief facts available from the record are that on 02.07.1984 accident occurred when the deceased was going on his bicycle at that point of time a Truck came rashly and negligently and dashed him and caused his death. Accident is not in dispute, and therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimant against the driver and owner as well as Insurance Company of offending vehicle. Tribunal after hearing the parties and after taking into account the evidence on record allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 33,000/- in favor of the claimant.

4. The main plank of submission is that under Section 95 (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 15,000/- only and the Tribunal has misread the cover-note and therefore, it is submitted that Tribunal committed an error in holding that as extra premium of Rs. 348/- was charged, the liability was unlimited, and as separate charge for the passengers was taken, therefore, it is submitted that this finding is bad as no extra premium was charged for passengers and liability was only to Rs. 15,000/-.

5. The learned Tribunal has threadbare discussed the difference in a contract of minimum liability contract as well as of statutory liability and in this case it is proved that where liability is not limited by cogent evidence from the policy itself that for 29 passengers, extra premium of Rs. 348/- was charged. Third party insurance of Rs. 75/- was also charged, and therefore, in light of the decision of those days, the submission that policy was for limited purpose and liability was only Rs.15,000/- cannot be accepted.

6. Section 95 reads with Section 92 (A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as follows:-

"SECTION 95: Requirements of policies and limits of liability

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance may be a policy which,-

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer391[or by a cooperative society allowed under section 108 to transact the business of an insurer], and

[(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;]

Provided that a policy shall not 393[* * *] be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employees of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment Mother than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle]; or

(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of. employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon -or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises, or

(iii) to cover any