The liability of an insurer under a motor vehicle insurance policy is not limited to the amount payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

( 1 ) THE point urged in this appeal is concluded by the view I have already taken in the matter in the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company's case (Misc. Appeal No. 75 of 1983, decided on 4-12-1985 ). Shri Singhal has made forceful submissions to contend that I may have a second look at the provisions and have a look also at the decisions cited. I have to do that and I have done that.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not disputed in this case, are that the claimants are legal representatives of a person who was in the employment of the owner of the motor vehicle on the date of the accident. There is no serious contest also on the question as to whether the owner of the vehicle incurred liability on account of rash and negligent driving thereof by the driver, who indeed, is not the person deceased. Much labour need not be expended either to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that there was a case proved of rash and negligent driving because of the doctrine res ipse loquitur being invoked. The vehicle over-ran the road-divider and failing to keep the balance, it got a jolt, whereby the deceased, who was travelling in the truck in the back-side, was thrown off the truck and died instantaneously.

( 3 ) THE short contention of Shri Singhal, counsel appearing for the Insurer, is that the liability of the insurer must be limited to the amount of compensation the deceased was entitled under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this case, a sum of Rs. 46,000/- has been awarded, which sum, according to Shri Haswani is in excess of the, amount contemplated in the First Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which entitles the legal representatives of the deceased to get a sum of Rs. 21,600/- only.

( 4 ) COUNSEL has placed reliance, despite what I have observed in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) for my consideration, on three decisions to support his contention. In 1981 Acc CJ 441 (Andh Pra), (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamparaju Sunkammal, the view taken was that although claim by the legal representatives of an employee under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short. the 'act', was maintainable, the limit of liability of the insurance company, would he limited in its extent to that allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This view indeed positively and affirmatively and very strongly supports the contention pressed by Shri Singhal, but with due respect. I am not convinced and I do not feel inclined to take a different view, departing from the view earlier taken. This, I saw reading para 6 of the report, in which I read no detailed reason for the view taken, which would definitely indicate that the point was not at all in issue. This is what I read :"the question that then remains is, as to what is the limit of liability of the insurer. The Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,500 as compensation under S. 110-A of the Act and directed both the respondents 1 and 2 viz. , the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company to pay the said amount. But under the proviso to S. 95 (1) (b) of the Act, the liability of the insurer is limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the insurer is absolved fromall liability arising thereunder. But the liability of the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for injury to the workman has not been determined. "the same position obtained in the decision reported in 1984 Acc CJ 701, Huseinbhai Ahmedbhai Memon v. Mangiben, where the point is dealt with at para 10 of the report. This is what is all stated by their Lordships to deal with the point :"we entirely agree with this contention that the respondent No. 3, insurance company is liable to satisfy the award to the extent of the liability of the owner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. "the third decision is in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Alamelu, AIR 1983 Mad 221, wherein also, in dealing with the point at