Judgment:
A. Pasayat, J.
1. The only point involved in these appeals is whether liability of United Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') was in excess of Rs. 15,000/-.
2. A brief reference of the factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the appeals:
Nineteen persons sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 4.8.1987. The injured persons along with others were travelling in a passenger bus named Sri Laxmi bearing registration No. OSC 7233. The vehicle turned turtle by the side of the Colarnthara Govindpur Road near Parbatipur. The injured persons filed applications under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') claiming various amounts as compensation from M. Madhab Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured'). Since the vehicle was claimed to be insured with the insurer, it was also impleaded as a party.
3. The insured filed his written statement, inter alia, taking a stand there was no negligence as alleged and the quantum of compensation claimed was exorbitant. Additionally, it was pleaded that since the vehicle was insured with the 'insurer, and there was valid policy of insurance, petty compensation as claimed by each claimant was to be paid by the insurer. The insurer also filed its written statement disputing its liability. It took a specific stand with reference to Section 95(2)(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, during trial that if it is accepted that it had any liability, the same is restricted to Rs. 15,000/- for each passenger.
4. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record came to hold that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured's vehicle and awarded various amounts of compensation. It held that policy which was exhibited as Ext. A/1 indicated that extra premium to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been paid, it was a comprehensive policy and therefore, it was to be presumed that liability of the insurer was unlimited. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ratnabala Mohapatra and Ors. 67 (1989) CLT 155 in support of this view.
5. In cases where the amounts involved are more than Rs. 15,000/-, the insurer has challenged correctness of conclusion relating to its liability beyond Rs. 15,000/-. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal fell into grave errors in coming to the conclusion that whenever policy is a comprehensive one, liability is unlimited. There was no specific averment by the insured that liability of the insurer was unlimited and therefore, conclusion of the Tribunal was erroneous. Insurance policy itself did not reflect about unlimited liability of the insurer. Mr. B.L.N. Swamy appearing for the insured however, submits that specific stand of the insurer in the written statement was that compensation, if any, was to be paid by the Insurance Company, as the amount claimed was petty. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Court referred to (supra) in support of the contention. Mr. S.S. Misra for the claimants took to same stand as that of the Insured.
6. It is not in dispute that if extra premium is not paid, liability of the insured in respect of a passenger travelling in a bus was Rs. 15,000/- at the relevant time in view of Section 95(2)(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The only question is whether there was any extra liability. It was observed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and Ors. : [1988]2SCR910 , that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it to covered at least under an 'act only' policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured higher premium than for an 'act only' policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to rules and regulations framed in this behalf. Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act for this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the Insurance Company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the Insurance Company in this behalf. Likewise, if risk of any other nature for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers etc. in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered, it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefore. This is the requirement of tariff regulations framed for the purpose. The Tribunal therefore, was not justified in concluding that because the policy was a comprehensive one, liability was unlimited. Where there is no specific averment regarding extra liability, mere non-filing of policy of insurance would not render the insurer liable to pay any amount in excess of the statutory liability. In the case at hand, perusal of written statement filed by the insured does riot show that a specific stand was taken about the unlimited liability of the insurer. Tariff rates can be referred to by the Tribunal to find out the extent of liability undertaken to be indemnified. That exercise does not appear to have been done in the case at hand. In the fitness of things therefore, the matter should be re-examined by the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation fixed is maintained. The Tribunal shall only adjudicate whether any extra premium was paid to make the insurer liable in excess of statutory liability under Section 95(2)(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. To avoid unnecessary delay, the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.12.1993 when the Tribunal shall fix up a date and undertake the adjudication. There is a residual challenge as to the stipulation of default clause as far as rate of interest is concerned. In view of decision of this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Buli Dei and Ors. 74 (1992) CLT 141 stipulation of default clause is unsustainable. However, rate of interest shall be @ 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. 80% of the award including interest shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of seven years as directed by the Tribunal in a Nationalised Bank and monthly interest shall be paid separately. Stipulation that the Bank shall not allow any loan to be raised on the fixed deposits is maintained. However, if the claimants make an application before the Tribunal indicating any special reason to avail loan or over draft there against, the Tribunal shall consider it on its own merits and may permit withdrawal to the extent of actual requirement. The amounts which have been deposited in this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal after adjustment of any amount already withdrawn.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.