H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1 of 1987 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ambala v. Ramesh Gupta and Ors.,) 840 of 1986 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nishat and Mahva Bus Private Ltd., Amritsar and Ors.) 841 of 1986 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nishal and Malwa Bus Private Ltd., Amritsar and Ors.). The facts have been taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1987.
2. On 25.5.1982 at about 9.30 P.M. Sadhu Ram, an Operator on a Drilling Machine. was killed when a truck bearing No. PBT-5217, registered with the appellant-Insurance Company, collided with the machine. The claimants, who are the widow and minor children of Sadhu Ram, filed an application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of the accident. The Tribunal, in its award dated 28.2.1983 granted a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation to the claimants and Saroj Bala, respondent No. 4, It further held that the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest on this amount and the balance amount was held to be payable by the driver and owner of the truck. The owner of the vehicle, Ramesh Gupta, thereafter filed an appeal in this Court, challenging the correctness of the Award of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited and that the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was, therefore, payable by the Insurance Company. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21.10.1986 held that it appeared from the insurance policy on record that it did not disclose any limitation with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company and as such, the entire amount was payable by it. The appeal was accordingly accepted. The present appeal alongwith two other connected appeals has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the correctness of the observations of the learned Single Judge, whereby the entire liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
3. During the course of hearing today, Mr. L.M. Suri, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company, has produced before us a true copy of the insurance policy of Truck No. PBT-5217, issued on 30.4.1982, and has referred to the endorsement, which reads as under-
Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
4. He argued that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Jugal Kishore and Ors., (1988-2)110 P.L.R. 128 and subsequently followed in New India Assurance Company Limited v. C.M. Jaya and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 171, the amount payable by the Insurance Company must be limited to Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, the judgment of learned Single Judge, holding that the entire amount of compensation, even beyond Rs. 50,000/-, was payable by the Insurance Company, was wrong.
5. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments and find that the same clearly cover the case of the appellant-Insurance Company. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, it has beep observed as under:-
7. A perusal of the policy, therefore, indicates that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and or unloading) of the motor vehicle falling under Section 11(1)(i) has been confined to 'such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939.' This liability, as is apparent from Clause (b) of sub section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000/- only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case falling under Section 11(1)(i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (I.E.V) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000/-. In this view of the matter the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondents that the appellant had in the instant case undertaken an unlimited liability does not obviously have any substance. The liability under the policy in the instant case was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, namely Rs. 20,000/-. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability.
6. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- mentioned in the portion quoted above has now been enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. It is also nobody's case before us that extra premium had been paid by the owner of the vehicle so that the liability of the Insurance Company could have been increased. We also observe that the observations afore-quoted were reiterated in the judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. CM. Java and Ors. (supra). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the policy did not disclose any limited liability appears to be erroneous in view of the settled position of law. We, however, find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been rendered way back in the year 1986, Admittedly, no stay had been granted by this Court, though the L.P.A. had been filed in the year 1.987. We can, therefore, safely assume that the entire amount would have been paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company. We also observe that respondent No. 2, Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Ram Parkash deceased, had in the meanwhile passed away but the other respondents, who are the sons (earlier minors now majors) and are already on record, have not put in appearance.
7. We accordingly, allow the appeal on the limited issue and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the question of liability of the insurance in view of the judgments quoted above but further direct that in case the full amount of compensation has already been paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company, the same shall not be recovered from them.