JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1989 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short) by which it passed an award in the sum of Rs. 2,88,000 payable by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (Company for short) and respondents 7 and 8. It also directed the appellant being the insurer to deposit six cheques of Rs. 48,000 each with proportionate costs in the names of the to spective claimants within 45 days failing which, it was also made liable to pay interest at 10% per annum on the unpaid amount till realisation of the awarded amount. In the cross-objections, it is pleaded by respondents 1 to 6 that in case the plea of the appellant regarding limited liability is accepted, the balance of the awarded amount with interest should be ordered to be recovered from respondents 7 and 8 jointly and severally.
2. The claim petition was filed by the legal representative respondents 1 to 6 of the late Jaswant Singh who the in road accident on 4.7.1982 at about 6.15 a.m. at the crossing of Tilak Marg Bhagwan Dass Road while traveling in vehicle No. DER 2755 driven by one Deepak Sharma. The aforesaid vehicle was hit by truck No. DLL 122 driven by Hattur Ram, respondent No. 7 at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. The short point which falls for determination in this case is whether the liability of the Assurance Company is4imited to Rs. 50,000 or unlimited as held by the Tribunal. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that the Tribunal relied upon the cases of Lakhpat Rai v. United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. and nbsp; 1988 ACJ 466 and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vidya Devi and Ors. and nbsp; 1988 ACJ 558, while interpreting the liability of the appellant as unlimited. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however has drawn my attention to the case of National Insurance Company Limited New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and Ors. and nbsp, for a contrary conclusion, I have carefully gone through this authority. I am of the view that this case is fully covered by this authority. In that case it was ruled: “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 on 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 drive or passengers etc., in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered, 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 the separate premium paid there for. This is the requirement of the tariff regulations framed for the purpose. “A bare perusal of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would, therefore, go to show that there has to be a specific agreement between the owner and the insurance company for an unlimited liability and separate premium has to be paid in this respect. Unless that condition is satisfied the liability of the company cannot be deemed to be unlimited. In this case the insurance policy does not indicate that the vehicle was comprehensively insured. It also does not indicate if any higher or separate premium was being paid by the owner. The schedule of premium in the insurance policy Ex. RW1/1 is:
1. Third party risk Rs. 125
2. + One Driver Rs. 8
Rs. 133.00
Less 25% on no claim bonus Rs. 33.75
Net Rs. 99.25
The policy also indicates that the limits of liability will be as under:
Section II-I(i) in respect of any one accident and it is subject to clause M.V.C. and Endorsement No. 2(c) and 16.
Clause M.V.C. of the insurance company was placed on record along with the true copy of the insurance policy by the insurance company. Section II(i) of this clause defines the limits of liability of the company. This Section read with proviso (b) means that the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insurer shall become liable to pay in respect of death or of bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, a combined reading of the insurance policy along with the relevant Section of clause M.V.C. shows that the liability of the insurance company in this case will be limited to the statutory limit as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 95 because no extra premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle. That statutory limit at the time of the accident was Rs. 50,000 only is not disputed before me. Therefore, I am of the view that a perusal of the various terms and conditions of this insurance policy in the light of law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra), goes to show that the liability of the insurance company in this case is limited to Rs. 50,000 only.
3. On behalf of the respondents 7 and 8, it is argued by learned Counsel that actually right from the initial stage of the case there was collusion between the company on the one hand and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the other hand, to defeat the compensation claim. But in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the claimants do not seem to gain any mileage in their claim.
4. The appeal therefore, is allowed by holding that the liability of the appellant in this case was limited only to Rs. 50,000 and the same having been paid. It is no longer liable to pay any more to the claimants.
5. On behalf of respondents 7 and 8 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, it is argued that same lawyer as that of the insurance company was representing them before the Tribunal and the officials of the company did not allow respondents 7 and 8 to pursue their case independently so that material prejudice had been caused to their defense. A perusal of the record of the Tribunal shows mat the same Counsel filed separate written statements on behalf of respondents 7 and 8 and the insurance company. He also represented the during the trial. But from this circumstance, it cannot be inferred that the officials of the company practiced any fraud on respondents 7 and 8 or that they persuaded them to be represented to, the Counsel of insurance company. Such an allegation has come only in reply to cross-objections of respondents 1 to 8. Respondents 7, 8 should have been vigilant in watching their own interest in any case. They were made jointly and severally liable for the amount. But in view of the fact that the Tribunal held the liability of the appellant unlimited, it directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount. Respondents 7 and 8 did not prefer any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, it seems to be too late now for respondents 7 and 8 to say that they did not get any proper opportunity to defend their case before the Tribunal.
6. Therefore, the result is that the balance of the awarded amount that is Rs. 2,38,000 will be paid by respondents 7 and 8 jointly and severally to respondents 1 to 6 within 3 months, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay interest on this amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award by the Tribunal.