JUDGMENT
P.A. Mohammed, J.
1. These two appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common judgment in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 35 and 224 of 1986 of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Quilon, which arose from a motor accident which took place on 8.11.1985 in which two persons died, bike rider Suresh Babu and pillion rider Remanan. Legal representatives of the deceased filed the above applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common award granted a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 with interest at 6 per cent from 15.1.1986 till three months after the date of the award and 18 per cent interest thereafter till realisation in the former case. In the latter case the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000 with 6 per cent interest from 22.3.86 till three months after the date of award and 18 per cent interest thereafter till realisation. The insurance company, the common appellant in these cases, is made liable for the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant being aggrieved for making it fully liable for the compensation awarded, even though its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000 in each case, has filed these appeals.
2. The owner of the bike field cross-objection against the excessive nature of the compensation. In view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunhiraman Nambiar, 1994 ACJ 1019 (Kerala), the cross-objection is not maintainable. It is, therefore, dismissed.
3. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, we are of the view that the amount awarded is fair and reasonable. We, therefore, uphold the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the cases.
4. The only point which requires to be examined in this case is whether the appellant is liable for the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. The main point advanced by the counsel appearing for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurer is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000 in each case. The common insurance policy applicable in both the cases is produced as Annexure R-1. Of course, the policy is styled as ‘Commercial vehicle comprehensive policy’. However, the details of payment of premium are mentioned in the Schedule of premium at page 4 of the policy. The premium for the liability to public risk is stated as Rs. 240 and limit per passenger is Rs. 26.50 and for conductor it is Rs. 24. Along with that premium for own damage and 1.1 per cent on total I.E.V. is stated as Rs. 2,200, and the total amount under that column comes to Rs. 2,244. Thus, the net premium due on the policy is Rs. 4,642. The limits of the liability are detailed in Exh. R-1 policy as below:
Limits of liability
Limit of the amount of the company’s liability under Section II (1) (i) in respect of anyone accident:
Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Section II deals with the liability to third parties. Clause 1 (a) thereof specifies that subject to the limits of liability the company will indemnify the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. In such cases, company’s liability is to the extent of such an amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. Clause (b) (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 will apply in this context. That means the liability of the company in respect of a person in any one accident is limited to Rs, 50,000.
5. In view of the above it can safely be held that the liability of the company is limited to Rs. 50,000 in the case of one person. However, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that in the Schedule of premium contained in Exh. R-1 there is an entry to the effect —
Add for increased third party limits under Section II (1) (i) unlimited
Under Section II (1) (ii) Rr …
Since there is a word ‘unlimited’, counsel points out that the liability of the insurer is unlimited because that word has not been scored off. Such a position does not emerge from that column. What it indicates is that in case the third party limits under Section II (1) (i) is to be made unlimited, payment of additional premium is required. But no amount/sum has been specified therein as the amount to be paid. If there was an agreement to pay the increased premium, the amount to be paid towards such premium should have been necessarily mentioned as against the said entry. Only because it remains unscored off, it cannot be said that the liability is unlimited. In this context it would be worthwhile to examine the oral evidence available in this case. The Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW 2. He proved the Exhs. R-1 and R-2, the insurance policies produced in the M.V.O.Ps. He has testified that the maximum third party liability is Rs. 50,000 and the premium of Rs. 240 is paid by the owner of the vehicle. The total premium paid by the insured is Rs. 4,642. He further deposed that the insured has not paid an additional amount of Rs. 50 as premium. If that additional amount had been paid it would have become an unlimited policy. Thus it is sufficiently proved by the evidence of RW 1 that the policy involved in this case is a limited policy having the liability of Rs. 50,000 per person. The non-payment of the additional premium of Rs. 50 disables the insured to claim that policy involved is an unlimited policy. Even though RW 2 has been cross-examined, nothing has been brought out in support of the contention now advanced by the owner of the vehicle. In cross-examination he stated that unless the additional premium is paid the liability will not become unlimited. He further stated that the column for payment of this premium has been kept blank in the Schedule. It is apt to observe here that the owner of the vehicle has not gone to the witness-box and given evidence in support of the contentions advanced by him.
6. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC). That was a case in which a comprehensive insurance policy was involved. Para 7 of the said judgment deals with a situation similar to the present one, as follows:
This liability, as is apparent from Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000 only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case falling under Section II (1) (i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which had been comprehensively insured, the insured’s estimate of value including accessories (I.E.V.) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000. In this view of the matter the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondents that the appellant had in the instant case undertaken an unlimited liability does not obviously have any substance. The liability under the policy in the instant case was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, namely, Rs. 20,000. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability.
The above position, according to us, is very apt in the circumstances of this case.
7. Counsel for the appellant also brings to our notice the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 497 of 1988, decided on 20.1.1997. There also the question of liability of the insurance company in a similar set of circumstances arose. The company’s liability is limited to Rs. 50,000 in respect of person other than passengers carried for hire or reward.
8. Of course, counsel for the claimants maintained before us that when there is an ambiguity in the interpretation of the provisions contained in an insurance policy, the interpretation must always be in the favour of the insured. We have no quarrel with the above proposition. The question is whether there is any ambiguity as far as the present case is concerned. After careful scrutiny of the provisions contained in the policy and evaluating the same in the background of the decision of the Supreme Court aforesaid, we find there is no ambiguity in the facts of the present case.
9. The last point to be determined is as to how the liability for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be determined. We have found that the liability of the insurer is Rs. 50,000 per person. The balance amount payable towards compensation shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle who is the respondent No. 3 in both the appeals. In the result, these two appeals are allowed and the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs. 50,000 per person with interest as decreed by the Tribunal. For the balance amount due under the award the owner of the vehicle is liable as we have found above.