United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Surekha Bakshi and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
a) the case debated on the liability of the insurer under section 95(2)(b) of the motor vehicles act, 1939, to pay damages to the third party - it was found that on death or damage of any property of the third party, the insurer could not claim that it did not had liability to pay to the third person walking on the roadb) the case dealt with the unlimited liability of the insurer under section 95 of the motor vehicles act, 1939 - it was found that additional premium of rs. 8/- was being paid over and above the amount of payable premium for 'act only' policy under the tariff schedule - hence it was ruled that liability of the insurer was unlimited - - as a result of that impact the deceased as well as the pillion rider smt. since his condition continued deteriorating and in order to get.....orderusha mehra, j.1. the question involved in this appeal turns around the interpretation of the provisions of section 95(2)(b) of the motor vehicle act,1939 (hereinafter called the act) and the indian motor tariffs (schedule of premium) issued by the appellant.that the idea underlying clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the act is to provide cover with respect to the passengers to be carried for hire or reward, and thereforee, the liability of the insurer is to be covered by this clause. where the policy covers wider risks than those prescribed under section 95 (2)(b) and that the insurer had undertaken to indemnify the insured for his liability with regard to the death of any person, the court would be competent to make an award directing the insurer to pay such compensation.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Usha Mehra, J.

1. The question involved in this appeal turns around the interpretation of the provisions of Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act,1939 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Indian Motor Tariffs (Schedule of Premium) issued by the appellant.

That the idea underlying clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is to provide cover with respect to the passengers to be carried for hire or reward, and thereforee, the liability of the insurer is to be covered by this clause. Where the policy covers wider risks than those prescribed under Section 95 (2)(b) and that the insurer had undertaken to indemnify the insured for his liability with regard to the death of any person, the Court would be competent to make an award directing the insurer to pay such compensation to the claimant for which the insured is found liable. The question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the liability of the insurer (appellant herein) was restricted to an extent mentioned in the Insurance Policy and/or under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 95 of the Act? Is it that the insurer undertook to indemnify the insured for the liability for and on behalf of insured to an unlimited extent

2. In order to answer the above questions, we may have glance over the facts which are relevant to determine these points. Respondents 1 to 4 (claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (in short the Tribunal) are the legal heirs of deceased J.S.Bakshi. Mr. J.S.Bakshi was about 44 years old at the time of his death. He was working as Income Tax Officer, Grade-I, on a monthly salary of Rs.4,400/-. He was assessed to income tax. On 7th May,1987 at about 5.45 pm Mr.Bakshi was going on his scooter one Smt.Shashi Prabha Sehgal was sitting on his pillion seat, when a Three Wheeler Scooter suddenly appeared from India Gate Rajpath Road driven in a rash and negligent manner by Mr.Jasbir Singh. Driver Jasbir Singh was driving the three wheeler scooter rashly and recklessly that without stopping at the traffic signals violently rammed into the front portion of the scooter of the deceased. As a result of that impact the deceased as well as the pillion rider Smt.Sehgal were thrown away. The right leg of the deceased came under the wheel of the three wheeler scooter. It got crushed beside deceased received injuries all over his body. He was removed to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital wherefrom after getting first-aid he was shifted to East-West Medical Centre Golf Links. Since his condition continued deteriorating and in order to get better medical facilities he was shifted to Holy Family Hospital. There he succumbed to his injuries on 8th May,1987. He left behind his widow, a minor son and daughter and an aged mother. It was claimant's case that deceased was an intelligent officer. He was expected to be promoted as Assistant Commissioner and thereafter as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with higher emoluments. Because of this unexpected death due to no fault of his, his family suffered loss of companionship, status beside financial loss. Three Wheeler Scooter was insured with this appellant. Driver as well as this appellant were imp leaded as parties.

3. Before dealing with the legal questions raised, we must not forget that road accidents victims are a pathetic lots. Dealing with such case, I am reminded of the observation of Devies in Preface to 3rd Edition of the Law of Road Traffic:

'The continued carnage and slaughter on the roads have unhappily been a marked feature of modern life wherever a motor vehicle is used on a public road. Every road death or traffic accident normally involves a breach or violation of some aspect of the law on the part of some one and it is sad to say that judging from the contemporary road accident statistics there appears to have been over the past decades a complete dethronement of the rule of law by rule of lawlessness so far as the use or rather the misuse of the road is concerned.

4. Three wheeler scooterist as well as this appellant contested the case. Three wheeler scooterist's stand was simple that no accident took place with his vehicle. That he was not negligent. He, however, admitted that his scooter was insured with this appellant. Appellant took the plea that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/- because insured had taken out 'Act Only' policy. The factum of accident was not denied but denied the negligence of the driver of the Three Wheeler Scooter. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Three Wheeler Scooter and further worked out the dependency loss of the family at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 12 years and thus awarded a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-. Regarding limited liability the Tribunal answered against this appellant.

5. As already pointed out above the only point raised and to be answered by this Court is Whether by issuing a third party risk cover, the liability of the appellant still remained limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-? Whether the third party risk cover would mean the 'Act Only' policy and limit of liability remained limited? What is the effect of payment of additional premium of Rs.8/-

6. According to Mr.Vishnu Mehra, counsel for the appellant, the insurance cover Exhibit RW-2/2 made it clear that the limit of the insurer's liability arising out of one accident was Rs.50,000/-. Similarly reading of proposal form Exhibit RW-2/1 indicates that the insured never entered into any special agreement with the appellant for covering additional or unlimited risk. To support his contention Mr.Mehra placed reliance to para No.17 of the reply filed by the insured. In that according to Mr.Mehra, the insured did not state that he had paid additional premium or got his scooter insured for additional risk. Mere payment of Rs.48/- as basic premium no where indicate that additional risk was covered. Nor it would mean special agreement entered into as required by law and held by Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 and New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs . Smt. Shanti Bai & ors., : [1995]1SCR871 . In fact charging of basic premium of Rs.48/- was to include additional cover of property risk up to Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand). If Rs.40/- had been charged as premium which is for 'Act only' policy then property risk up to Rs.2,000/- was covered. This additional premium of Rs.8/- was to cover additional property risk. Charging of basic premium of Rs.48/- was not meant to cover the death or bodily injury of a person of unlimited extent. Infact insurance of third party risk was at par or synonymous to 'Act Only policy'. To support his arguments he placed reliance on the provisions of Section 94 of the Act. Heading of this section reads 'Necessity for Insurance Against Third Party Risk'. He, thereforee, contended that Section 94 provides that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place unless that vehicle is insured. Thus mere mentioning of third party risk in the insurance cover Exhibit PW-2/2 does not mean that the liability of the insurer was unlimited. Section 94 of the Act provides that insurance of a vehicle which ply on road is compulsory. It deals with 'Act only Policy' yet talks about third party risk. The liability would not become unlimited unless a special agreement is executed by the insured and for which additional premium has to be paid. Since in this case no special agreement was executed nor pleaded by the insured in his reply, thereforee, insurance company's liability in this case was limited. Since there was no special agreement executed between insured and insurer hence the case of the claimant would fall under Sub Section (2)(b) of Section 95 of the Act, which prescribes that where a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward, as in this case, and gets involved in an accident, the limit of liability would be Rs.50,000/-. This liability, Mr.Mehra contended the Tribunal could not enlarge under the garb that vehicle was insured for third party risk.

7. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in order to cover additional risk one has to pay additional premium. But unfortunately for the appellant, the insured Jagbir Singh did pay additional premium to cover unlimited risk. He appearing as his own witness testified that since he wanted his vehicle to be insured against all risks that is why in the proposal form he opted for third party risk and not 'Act only' policy. He paid additional premium of Rs.8/- for that. He further testified that he paid extra premium of Rs.8/- in order to get additional risk covered. Rs.90/- he paid for covering three passenger of the scooter. Sh.Jagbir Singh (RW-3) in no uncertain words testified that he got his TSR insured for unlimited liability. It was told to him by the officers of the appellant at the time he was made to pay Rs.8/- extra as additional premium that his vehicle was insured against all risks. He stated as RW-3 thus; 'SAB TARAH KE JOKHIMON KE LIYE BIMA KARNE KE LIYE KAHA THA. BIMA COMPANY KE ADHIKARIOYN NE MERI PRARTHNA SWIKAR KARTE HUAI MERI UKT GAADI KAA SABHI TARAH KE JOKHIMON KE LIYE BIMA MERE SE UNKE DWARA BATAI GAI KISHT LINE KE BAAD KAR DIYA THA' (translated into English it would read - He had requested the officers of the Insurance company to cover his vehicle bearing DER6697 against all risks. Official of the Insurance Company accepted his request and told that his aforesaid vehicle has been insured against all risks after charging money for the same). He was informed that the Insurance policy would be sent to him in due course at his residence. But that Insurance policy was never sent to him. inspire of lengthy cross examination the fact that he paid extra premium in order to get his vehicle insured against all risks remained unrebutted and controverter on record. His statement that he was only made to put his signature on the proposal form and the same was filled up by the official of the appellant was never subjected to cross-examination nor denied by the appellant. Since he wanted additional risks to be covered hence gave option of third party risk on the proposal form. Insurance policy was not sent to him nor delivered even when he approached three or four times. In order to get his vehicle covered for higher risks he paid Rs.48/- i.e. Rs.8/- extra than the usual basic premium. Not even a suggestion was given to him that this Rs.8/- was paid by him in order to cover higher property risk. Rather his statement that after charging higher premium he was assured that higher or unlimited risk cover was issued remained unchallenged on the records. This point of his statement was not subjected to any cross examination. The insured appearing as RW-3 clarified that additional premium was charged. This statement of RW-3 is fortified and stands corroborated by the factum of extra premium of Rs.8/- paid by him. Contention of Mr.Mehra that Rs.8/- additional premium charged was to cover extra property risk is bellied from the facts on record. This argument appears to have been built for the first time in this appeal. Neither this fact was confronted to the insured nor any of the appellant's witness stated so on oath. On the contrary in its written statement this appellant specifically pleaded that Rs.48/- was paid as premium for 'Act only' policy. Now in appeal this appellant cannot be allowed to set up a totally new plea of having paid Rs.8/- as additional premium for covering extra property risk. This plea seems to be an ingenious work of a competent lawyer like Mr.Vishnu Mehra. According to Mr.Mehra in order to avail extra benefits as per the India Motor Tariffs Schedule of Premiums (effective from 1st June,1985) for a vehicle like TSR the owner ought to have paid Rs.50/- in order to cover unlimited risk. Having not paid Rs.50/- the liability remained limited. I am afraid this argument has no substance rather is contrary to the Schedule of Premiums provided under the Tariffs. Perusal of the Tariffs shows that for a vehicle like TSR in order to cover 'Act only' policy a sum of Rs.40/- was to be charged as basic premium. In order to cover third party risk or liability to public risk or of wider magnitude the insured was required to pay Rs.48/- as premium which in this case was paid by the insured. Hence, it was not an 'Act only' policy as set up by the appellant in its written statement. By paying Rs.8/- extra premium the insured got extra benefits covered than an 'Act only' liability.

8. What is an 'Act only' policy and what is 'liability to the public risk' or 'third party cover' has been explained in the Schedule of Tariffs issued by the appellant.

9. There are three sets of covers provided in the India Motor Tariffs issued by the appellant , namely, (1) 'Own damage cover', (2) 'Liability to the public risks or third party cover', and (3) 'Act Only' liability cover. To determine whether it was a wider cover liability i.e. public risks or third party cover or 'Act Only' liability cover, it would be appropriate to refer to page 1 of the said Tariff. It has been stated in the Tariff that own damage cover alone cannot be issued. It has to be issued in conjunction with liability to the Public Risks only. What is 'Liability to the Public Risks or Third Party Cover' and what 'Act Only' liability cover stand for are defined as under:-

LIABILITY TO THE PUBLIC RISKS OR THIRD PARTY COVER:-

Indemnity to the Insured against liability for claims by the public in respect of accidental personal injury or damage to property caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle

'ACT ONLY' LIABILITY COVER:-

Indemnity to the Insured against legal liability as under the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, for claims by the public in respect of accidental personal injury or damage to property caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle Subject to the General Exceptions of the policy.

10. Reading of above makes it clear that in the case of 'Act Only' liability cover, the liability of the insurer is limited as defined under the Motor Vehicle Act,1939. Further more it would be subject to the General Exceptions of the policy. Whereas in the case of Liability to the Public Risks or Third Party Cover, the insurer will indemnify the insured against claims raised by the public in respect of accident either of personal injury or damage to the property caused by the insured vehicle. Reading of the two definitions given in the Tariff makes it clear that Third Party cover and 'Act Only' cover are two distinct things. These are not synonymous nor at par with each other as suggested by Mr.Mehra. Perusal of Ex.RW-2/1 i.e. proposal form makes it clear that the insured had opted for third party risk cover. In the column 'Scope of cover required' three categories of covers were mentioned, namely, (i) Comprehensive, (ii) Third Party; and (iii) Act Liability. The insured got tick marked the second opinion i.e. third party cover meaning thereby that at the time of taking out the policy the insured opted for wider liability cover and not an 'Act Only' cover. The defense as set up by this appellant in its written statement that liability of the insurer was limited because insured took out 'Act Only' policy stand refuted with the above facts which had come on record. The insurance cover Exhibit RW-2/2 which deals with the limit of the liability clearly show that risk to personal injury was not restricted to Rs.50,000/-. The said clause in the insurance cover reads as under :

Limits of Liability

Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under Section II-I(i) in respect of any one accident: Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act,1939.

Limits of the amount of the company's liability under Section II-I(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event. Rs.50,000/-.

11. As per the policy Clause II-I(ii) is with regard to damage to the property and Clause II-I(i) deals with the death or bodily injury to any person. The limit of Rs.50,000/- had been prescribed against clause II-I(ii) which deals with damage to the property. But no limit of Rs.50,000/- was prescribed against Clause II-I(i) which deals with death or bodily injury to any person. thereforee, even policy Exhibit RW-2/2 does not prescribe any limit of liability with regard to cases of bodily injury or death. Since limit of liability was not attached to Clause II-I(i) hence the insurer has to indemnify the insured against all claims which the insured was made liable to pay.

12. The Schedule of Premiums for Motor Insurance deals with the case of 'liability to the public risks' regarding motorised rickshaw. It covers three wheeler scooter provided the capacity of the same does not exceed 350 c.c. For such a vehicle the basic premium of 'Act Only' policy is Rs.40/- whereas for wider risk cover the premium is Rs.48/-. In this case the insured paid extra premium in order to get wider risk covered and, thereforee, paid Rs.48/-. Thus by paying Rs.8/- extra in comparison to 'Act Only' liability he got his auto rickshaw covered for wider liability. In fact the insurer in this case by covering wider liability acted as security for the third party with respect to its Realizing compensation for the death caused. Supreme Court in the case of New Asiatic Insurance Company Limited Vs . Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani & ors., : [1964]7SCR867 while dealing with the liability of Insurance Company qua third party observed that conditions in the policy are effective only between the insured and the company, and have to be ignored when considering the liability of the company to third party. It was stated that 'the avoidance clause says that nothing in the policy or any endorsement thereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by the policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act. It also provides that the insured will repay to the company all sums paid by it which the company would not have been liable to pay but for the said provisions of the Act.

13. From the reading of this judgment it is clear that third party claim would not be effected by any term of the policy.

14. Relying on the above observations of the Apex Court in the case of New Asiatic Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra) Mr.Moorjani contended that the limit of liability is not applicable to the third party i.e. the deceased. The terms of policy could only bind the contracting parties i.e. the insured and the insurance company but that cannot effect the right of the third party. Moreover, in this case insured had paid additional premium to cover wider risk for which purpose also the liability of the Insurance Company could not be limited as alleged.

15. Mr.Shyam Moorjani introduced another angle to the whole controversy. According to him Section 95(2)(b) does not get attracted when third person on the road is involved. Hence the question of limited liability would not arise if the vehicle kills any person on the road. Section 95(2)(b) deals with persons inside the vehicle or connected with the vehicle and not an innocent person on the road who had nothing to do with the vehicle. In order to appreciate his argument, lets have glance at Section 95(2) of the Act which reads as under :-

95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability-

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely-

(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment-

(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;

(ii) in respect of passengers,-

(1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers;

(2) a limit of seventy five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers;

(3) a limit of one lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers; and

(4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passengers where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case;

16. From the reading of Section 95(2)(b) it is apparent that it speaks of the passengers in the vehicle be that for hire or reward, any other person by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment being in the vehicle, the liability will be limited. The question for consideration is if the person injured was not a passenger for hire or reward nor an employee but walking on the road then still the liability of the insurer be limited. According to Mr.Moorjani there can be only two classifications in such like cases one who are victims of the road accident and others i.e. vehicles which caused the accident. There cannot be any other classification. It would per se be discriminatory and against the Constitution if an injured is entitled to receive unlimited amount because he was hit by a private vehicle and limited liability because of being hit by a commercial vehicle. If this interpretation is given it would defeat the benevolent provisions of the Act and would be vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Sub-section(2) of Section 95 stipulates that limit of liability of Rs.50,000/- is in respect of passengers in the vehicle or connected with the said vehicle. This provision no where provides or speak about limited liability regarding third party. Even though section 95(2) specifically does not talk about the gratuitous passenger still the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Lal Sood & ors. v. Smt.Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 (2) Sca 344 treated a gratuitous passenger in the insured vehicle as a third party and granted full compensation. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Orissa Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Santosh Gupta, reported in 1997 IV AD 729. Dwelling further on the point Mr.Shyam Moorjani contended that it would be very unfortunate if a person on the road hit by a commercial vehicle is paid Rs.50,000/- but allowed unlimited amount of compensation if hit by a private vehicle. Victim of the road is not concerned with which vehicle he was hit. It is to protect such victim on the road that no limit of liability has been fixed by the Act. The liability is limited only with regard to the passengers who are in the vehicle or connected with the vehicle. That is why Insurance Company's right to file appeal has been made limited by the Statute under Section 96 of the Act. It would be giving a very unrealistic classification to the victims hit by commercial vehicle and those hit by a private car. The object of bringing the provision of the Act by the Legislature was to safeguard the interest of third party who are neither in the vehicle nor connected with the vehicle. Infact the substantive provision of Section 95 deals with the passenger of the vehicle and not persons on road. Sub-section (2) of Section 95 deals with the passengers. Any other person used in sub-section (2) has a direct nexus with the passenger of the vehicle. In fact Legislature never presumed this discriminatory approach. If the result is discriminatory then such a provision is against the Constitution. Alternatively he argued that even if Section 95(2)(b) apply to a person on the road and the liability is presumed to be limited even then in the facts of this case the insured by paying additional premium got wider risk covered. Hence the liability no longer remained limited. Because of the contract between the insured and the insurance company third party cannot be made to suffer. At best the insurance Company (appellant herein) if pays more than its liability under the policy, it can under the proviso of sub-section (3) and sub-section (1) can recover it from the insured. To support his contention he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs . Captain Itbar Singh & Ors. : [1960]1SCR168 as well as New Asiatic Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra) and Amrit Lal Sood (supra).

17. Perusal of the decisions quoted above would show that Apex Court safeguarded the interest of the third party. In the present case also the insurer (appellant herein) assured the insured that it would indemnify against liability for claims by the public. While indemnifying it no where restricted its liability like in the case of 'Act only' liability cover where it agreed to indemnify as per the Motor Vehicle Act,1939. thereforee, the appellant now cannot turn around and say that its liability qua third party was limited.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Manjushri Raha Vs . B.L.Gupta, : [1977]2SCR944 observed that 'the Motor Vehicle Act has taken a very narrow view by limiting the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 95(2)(d) to Rs.2,000/- only in case of third party. It is only just and fair that Legislature should make a suitable provision so as to pay adequate compensation by properly evaluating the precious life of a citizen in its true perspective rather than devaluing human lives on the basis of an artificial mathematical formula.' The Apex Court also took note of the fact that where a passenger travels by a plane and he dies in an accident, he gets a compensation of Rs.1 lakh or huge sums, and yet when death comes to him not through a plane but through a motor vehicle he is entitled to only to Rs.2,000/-. Such an invidious distinction is absolutely shocking to any judicial or social conscience and yet Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act seems to suggest such a distinction. Supreme Court in that case expressed hope and trust that our law makers would give serious attention to this aspect of the matter and remove this serious lacuna in Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also suggested that instead of limiting the liability of the insurance company to a specified sum of money as representing the value of human life, the amount should be left to be determined by a court in special circumstances of each case. This hope and trust by the Supreme Court was at last been implemented by the Legislature when it brought amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act thereby removing the limit of liability of the insurance company'. But this happened after the present accident. thereforee, what we have to see whether Section 95(2)(b) limit the liability qua third party also.

19. Admittedly the Third Party risk was really the road insurance risk before the amendment of 1956 and the employee risk and passenger risk was only voluntary. However, after 1956 amendment, Section 95(1) proviso has enacted that a policy shall be required to cover liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury of certain employees like driver of the vehicle. Other clauses of proviso cover other employees and persons carried in goods vehicle. For those employees statutory policy is required to be taken under Section 94 as per the requirement and limitation laid down in Section 95. Passenger risk is also provided for. The statutory insurance is not merely the road insurance where accident takes place to third party and the risk is covered, but there is also a statutory insurance coverage so far as employee's risk arises in respect of specified employees and even risk is covered in specified cases in respect of passengers carried in the vehicles. Of course, this risk is as per the limitation laid down in Section 95 (2).

20. As per Section 95(1)(b) of the Act, the insurer is liable to pay compensation up to the extent specified in sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. For the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party, if the same is caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle in a public place.

21. From what the Supreme Court has said and as quoted above, it is apparent that what Mr.Moorjani contends appears to be a plausible interpretation. For support reference can be made to the observation of Apex Court in the case of New Asiatic Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra) where the Court said 'Thus the contract between the insured and the company may not provide for all liabilities which the company has to undertake vis-a-vis the third party, in view of the provisions of the Act. We are of the opinion that once the company had undertaken liability to third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third party's right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition of the terms of the policy, it is reasonable to conclude that proviso (a) of para 3 of Section 11 is a mere condition affecting the rights of the insured who effected the policy and the persons to whom the cover of the policy was extended by the company, and does not come in the way of the third parties' claim against the company on account of its claim against a person specified in para 3 as one to whom cover of the policy was extended.' The appellant for this reason also cannot resist the claim of the respondents (claimants before the Tribunal) or urge the question of limited liability against the third party on account of additional premium having been paid in this case and the policy covering wider risk.

For the reasons stated above I find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed with costs.