JUDGMENT
N.K. Jain, J.
1. The claim cases giving rise to all these appeals (M.A. No. 148 of 1989, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhimaji M.A. No. 150 of 1989, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Chandra) arose out of the same motor accident and since common question of law is involved in all these appeals, these are being taken up together and disposed of by this single judgment.
2. It is no more in dispute in these appeals that on 20.12.1986 respondents Riaz Mohammed, Bhimaji and Jagdish Chandra were travelling in a passenger bus No. CPU 5426 which met with an accident causing injuries to the aforesaid respondent passengers. They preferred claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was then in force. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 31,000/-, Rs. 22,000/- and Rs. 39,500/- to the aforesaid claimants vide impugned orders dated 5.4.1989 passed in Claim Case Nos. 1, 20 and 7 of 1987, respectively. The appellant insurance company and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, were made liable fully to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally.
3. The only question canvassed in these appeals was that in the aforesaid awards, the liability of the appellant insurance company was not joint and several to the extent of full amount of those awards along with the owner and driver of the bus, but was limited to the payment of Rs. 15,000/- to each claimant, being the extent of statutory liability required to be covered under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company relied heavily on a decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), wherein it was held:
Even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an ‘Act only’ policy it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured a higher premium than for an ‘Act only’ policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, do not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf. Likewise, if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers, etc., in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor. This is the requirement of the Tariff Regulations framed for the purpose.
5. The aforesaid decision obviously turns on the interpretation of the terms of insurance policy involved in that case. It cannot be taken as an authority for the interpretation of the terms of the insurance policy which was taken out in the present cases. However, one thing is clear from the aforesaid decision that notwithstanding the limit of statutory liability contained in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is possible to provide for covering a risk in excess of the statutory liability by specifying the same in the policy and payment of separate premium therefor.
6. In the cases before us, the appellant insurance company although did not file the full policy document but only photocopies of the certificate of insurance generally called the cover note. A look at this document would show that the insurance company, inter alia, undertook to indemnify the insured against all sums, claimant’s costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to a third party caused by or arising out of the use of motor vehicle to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. For this purpose an additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid. My attention was, however, drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants towards the clause B of the Schedule of premium appended to the aforesaid certificate of insurance wherein under the head ‘Liability to Public Risk’ limit for passenger is shown as Rs. 15,000/-. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent passengers submitted that a passenger cannot be distinguished from a third party and as such the liability of the insurance company under the policy was co-extensive with that of the driver and the owner.
7. It is apt here to refer to the following observation of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC):
We also do not find any justification for continuing the distinction between the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to passengers and the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to other third parties under the said provision.
Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court this court in Kishori v. Chairman Tribal Services Co-op. Society Ltd. 1988 ACJ 636 (MP), held that passengers are third party who are compared with other third parties in the matter of liability to compensation as provided in the provisions of the Act of 1939. A similar view was taken in the cases of United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvar-lal 1992 ACJ 585 (MP) and Murari Singh v. Ritu Tuteja 1993 ACJ 784 (MP).
8. From the foregoing discussions it, therefore, inevitably follows that the passenger travelling in a bus has to be treated at par with any other third party in the matter of awarding compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ‘Third party’ obviously means person other than the ‘First party’ the insurer and ‘Second party’ the insured. So, notwithstanding the said limitation contained in the policy note, the respondent, passengers were the third party for the purpose of award of compensation and so the liability of the appellant insurance company in respect thereof was to the extent of full amount of award along with owner and the driver of the bus.
9. In the result, all these appeals fail and are dismissed without any order as to the cost.