JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. assails the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Case No. 7 of 1977 decided on 31.5.1982 whereby the Tribunal has directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 91, 200/- from the respondents in the case along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent and the costs of the petition.
2. The claim was preferred by the widow and two minor children of the deceased, Kamal Dutt Sharma, who met with an accident on 28.12.1976 while travelling in bus No. HPK 1075. The deceased was employed as Junior Engineer in the office of the Block Development Officer, Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. He was receiving Rs. 735/-per month as emoluments. The allegation was that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver while crossing bridge over Khiran Khad with the result that it fell in the khad and the deceased died at the spot. The case of the respondents has been that the accident took place on account of unforeseen mechanical defect in the bus which was an act of God and beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle. It has been denied that the bus was being driven negligently or rashly. They have denied even the fact that the deceased was travelling by the said bus.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether accident of the bus bearing number HPK 1075 is the result of rash and negligent driving? OPP
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, how much and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether the deceased was one of the passengers of ill-fated bus? OPP
(4) Relief.
4. After the trial, all the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and compensation to the extent of Rs. 91,200/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent and costs of the petition.
5. The short question that arises for decision in this case is the order of the Tribunal calling upon all the respondents to pay the amount of compensation without specifying the exact liability of each of them.
6. Mr. Maharaj Baksh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, submits that the impugned award is liable to be modified for the reason that the liability of the insurance company does not exceed Rs. 5,000/- per passenger. Reference to the written statement of defence as well as the insurance policy was made in support of this submission. I see substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company since its liability cannot exceed beyond Rs. 5,000/- per passenger whereas the Tribunal has made all the respondents liable for the award amount without specifying the exact amount exclusively recoverable from the insurance company.
7. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) so far relevant is as under:
95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
XXX XXX XXX
(2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (i), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely-
(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle,…
(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) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX
(4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case.
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Further, the learned counsel for the insurance company also placed reliance on decisions like Northern India Transporters’ Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amra Wati 1966 ACJ 13 (Punjab), Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters’Insurance Co. Ltd. 1971 ACJ 206 (SC), Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. by its successor: United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.P. Balakrishnan 1982 ACJ 460 (Kerala), M.K. Kunhimohammed v. PA. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), Hamirpur Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Parveen Lata Kapoor 1989 ACJ 905 (HP) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Wati FAO. No. 110 of 1982.
9. I am in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company and in light of the decisions already referred to above, the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed more than Rs. 5,000/-per passenger in the present case.
10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the insurance company is made liable to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on this amount and proportionate costs awarded by the Tribunal. In case the insurance company had deposited an amount more than this, the same may be refunded to it. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. The cross-objections seek enhancement of compensation from Rs. 91,200/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the same by applying low multiplier which it could not have done in view of the age, health and future promotion chances of the deceased. It has also been stated that interest rate deserves to be enhanced since the Tribunal has awarded low rate of interest. No one has appeared to press these objections. However, the award was examined but I see no reason to allow any of the prayers of the claimants in these cross-objections. The award is correct on these aspects hence there is no substance in these cross-objections and the same are dismissed without costs.