Vineet Kothari, J.—The claimant injured Panne Singh has preferred this appeal before this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by judgment dtd.31.5.1997 passed by the learned MACT, Sojat, Dist. Pali in his claim petition No.171/1992, which was filed forRs.12,55,716/- and the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,93,000/- with interest @12% to be paid from24.3.1986, the date of filing claim petition till the date of payment.

2. On 29.9.1985 in the night at about 10.30 p.m., when the injured – claimant was travelling in Super Deluxe bus No. RNP 501, the same met with accident with truck No. RRZ 6938 coming from opposite side and the present claimant – appellant’s right hand got crushed and ultimately had to be amputated from shoulder and one more person Sumer Singh travelling at seat No.35 lost his life. The claimant – appellant Panne Singh was a practicing advocate of Rajasthan High Court and was aged about 34 years on the date of accident.

3. The learned Tribunal while determining the compensation has taken only the income of Rs.30,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of 18 has awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of income’ and non-pecuniary losses for physical and mental agony to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and permanent disability to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.45,000/- for transportation for coming from residence to Court, Rs.3000/- for medical treatment and Rs.5000/- for other expenses, thus, a total sum of Rs.6,93,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal.

4. Initially an objection was raised by the respondent – New India Assurance Company of truck and bus that since the accident had taken place on 29.9.1985 prior to enforcement of 1988 Act, the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited under Section 95 of the Old Act. However, in view of consistent decisions of this Court and various other High Courts in following cases, to the effect that where the total premium was charged at Rs.240/- instead of Rs.200/-, unlimited liability for public risk would be covered and there being no contrary view of this Court on this issue, this issue is no longer open and this Court is of the opinion that the respondent – Insurance Companies would be liable to unlimited extent to the extent the owner of the offending vehicles would be liable to pay compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act. Since the injured claimant was travelling in bus, he was third party qua the insurer of the Truck, another offending vehicle and in view of following decisions, the liability of insurer would be unlimited even under Section 95 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939.

i) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi, 2004 RAR 519 (Raj.).

ii) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Halima and Ors., 2004 RAR 525 (Raj.).

iii) Neeta Trehan and Ors. v. Gopal Krishan and Ors., 2011 ACJ 2029 (Delhi).

iv) Hastimal Lodha v. Shakuntala Kumari, 1999 ACJ 790.

v) Tulsiram Agarwal v. Manjinder Singh and Ors., 1999 ACJ 988.

vi) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hasti Mal Lodha, 2006 (1) WLC 666.

5. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:

“22. This brings to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute about the finding that the premium charged by the Insurance Company was in excess of “Act only Policy” and was under Heading B “liability to public risk”, which was indicated at Rs.240/- along with other premium with which we were not concerned presently. The terms of policy which defined the liability to third parties at page two of the footing is vitally different than what was before the Supreme Court in Keshav Bahadur’s case (supra). On the principal clause, the terms of liability may be quoted below:

1. Subject to the limit of liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant’s