JUDGMENT
N.K. Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 8.9.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-thana in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 21/1988, whereby the learned tribunal awarded a total amount of compensation as Rs. 2,74,800/- but held that the insurance company will be liable to make the payment upto Rs. 25,000/- and rest of amount will be recovered from the owner and driver of the vehicle, in question.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that initial liability to make entire payment of compensation lies on the insurance company, even if liability of the insurance company is limited and after payment of the entire amount of compensation, the insurance company is entitled to recover the excess amount on its liability amount from the owner of the vehicle.
3. His next contention is that even as per insurance policy, the liability of the insurance company was upto Rs. 50,000/- whereas the learned tribunal divided the said liability of Rs. 50,000/- in two accidents and passed an award of Rs. 25,000/- only against the insurance company in each case. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Teeja and Ors. v. Prabhu Dayal Meena and Anr., in SB CMA No. 946 of 1994, decided on 3.12.2004 and in the case of Motor Owners’ Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors. .
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company submits that the liability of the insurance company was limited one upto Rs. 50,000/- in respect of passenger. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to make any excess payment. It is also contended that in the case of Teeja and Ors. v. Prabhu Dayal Meena and Anr. supra, the judgment of the constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and Ors., was not considered, wherein their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in such a case, the insurer, held liable only to the extent limited under Section 952 and not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties.
6. There is no dispute that this matter relates to the year 1985 and liability of the insurance company in the present matter was upto Rs. 50,000/-. This fact has not been disputed by both the learned Counsel. So far as submission of the appellant that the initial burden of the insurance company to make the entire payment and to recover the excess amount from the owner is concerned. I find that in the case of Teeja supra this Court considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors., , wherein three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 104 held that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time. The controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh supra was in respect of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and in that situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that in such circumstances the decree must be satisfied by the insurer and thereafter recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. There is no dispute that in the present case there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is a case of limited liability of the insurance company. Hence the judgment given in the case of Smt. Teeja is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. C.M. Jaya and Ors. supra the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;
“Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court.”
8. So far as present case is concerned, the extra premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the liability of the insurance company in the present case was limited one upto Rs. 50,000/-.
9. So far as second contention of the appellant about order directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 25,000/- only is concerned, it is clear that in the case of Motor Owner’s Insurance Company Limited v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors. supra their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the expression “any one accident” in Section 952 of the Motor Vehicle Act and held that in the context of purpose of the Act, it signifies as many accident as number of persons insured in an accident. Therefore, it is clear that limit of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- extend to each claimant. On this point the case is covered by above judgment and insurance company is, therefore, held liable to make the payment of compensation upto Rs. 50,000/- in each. Therefore, claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- from the insurance company in the present case instead of Rs. 25,000/- only. The judgment of the learned tribunal is liable to be modified to that extend.
10. No other argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the learned tribunal is modified to the extend that out of Rs. 2,74,800/- the appellants will be entitled to recover Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent No. 3, insurance company and rest of the amount of compensation will be recovered from the respondent No. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle. No order as to costs.