JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) 681 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant.
2. The claimant therein one Dr. Kurian P. Chacko, a medical practitioner, met with an accident on 7-5-1981. The claimant was riding a motor cycle and a passenger bus bearing registration No. K.L.R. 7959 hit the motor cycle and the Motor cyclist was thrown away and he sustained serious injuries. The incident happened at Kanattukara on Trichur Kunnamkulam main road. The injured was admitted in the hospital. He was under prolonged treatment. It is said that he is even now undergoing treatment for his injuries. At the relevant time he was employed as a House Surgeon in the District Hospital, Trichur. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,29,776.83 as compensation. The Tribunal awarded the entire amount as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from 4-11-1981 till realisation.
3. The only contention urged by the insurance company is that their liability as per the policy issued in favour of the owner of the bus is limited to Rs. 50,000/- as envisaged under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the policy issued in favour of the owner of the bus is comprehensive one and the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. The claimant produced the original policy before this Court, and it is marked as Ext. X-2. On a perusal of the same we see that the contention of the appellant appears to be correct. In Annexure I of the policy under the head limits of liability it has been stated: “Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939”.
Section II, 1(1) has been further given in the next page. It reads:
Section II–Liability to Third Parties–1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the company will indemnify the Insured against all sums including claimant’s costs and expenses which the Insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle.
Therefore, we hold that the policy covers only the minimum liability of Rs. 50,000/-. The owner of the motor vehicle, namely, 2nd respondent P. Sivasankaran, is liable to pay the balance amount.
4. The claimant has filed a cross objection alleging that he had filed, an application for amendment of the petition to incorporate an additional claim and the same was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. In the cross objection it has been alleged that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the amendment application. The reason for dismissing the amendment application was that the claim put forward therein was barred by limitation It is true that bar of limitation alone is not a ground for refusing the amendment. In the instant case the petitioner had preferred the claim considering all aspects and the entire compensation amount prayed for was granted by the Tribunal. It may be true that the claimant had to undergo expensive treatment even after the filing of the petition. He should have anticipated it and placed his claim accordingly. Of course, there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal taking into consideration the subsequent events also while assessing the compensation. We do not see any merit in the cross objection.
5. In the result, the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from 14-11-1981 till the date of deposit made by them. The claimant is entitled to recover the balance amount the 2nd respondent in the appeal, he being the owner of the bus with interest at 6% per annum from 14-11-1981 till realisation.
The M.F.A. is disposed of as above. The cross objection is also dismissed. The parties to bear their costs.