JUDGMENT
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.
1. Second respondent-insurer in O.P.No. 366/88 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, preferred this appeal against the award passed therein granting a total compensation of Rs. 127,700/- to the claimants in the O.P. Owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has also filed cross-objections in the matter questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal and cross-objections briefly stated are these:
T. Veeresh, aged about 25 years and running a mechanical workshop and also manufacturing some machine parts, who was travelling in the bus AAQ 6749 died on 13-6-88 in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The parents, wife and minor daughter of the deceased filed the above O.P. claiming a total compensation Rs. 2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus involved in the accident Owner filed counter putting the claimants to strict proof of their case and specifically pleaded that the bus involved in the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company i.e. second respondent in the Q.P. and that that insurer is bound to indemnify his liability towards the claimants. The insure also filed counter on similar lines stating that they are liable to compensate the claimants as per the Motor Vehicles Act. After due enquiry, the tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by it; driver and that the bus was insured by the owner with the United India Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per passenger and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,27,700/-. The insurer, aggrieved by the above award, preferred this appeal questioning the extent of its liability and the owner filed cross-objections questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that there was a mistake in issuing Ex. B-3 policy limiting the liability per passenger to Rs. 1,50,000/- and this was a clear mistake in view of the fact that Rs. 588/- only were paid toward; increased T.P. limits for 49 passengers. This mistake of printing limits per passenger is evidently not pleaded in the counter of the insurer before the tribunal. They have taken a general plea that their liability extends as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not in dispute that the provisions Motor Vehicles Act do not prohibit the parties to enter into contract for enhanced liabilities. In this case, admittedly, the alleged mistake was no rectified prior to the accident. It is seen from the evidence of RW. 2 that the) issued Ex. B-5 endorsement unilaterally after the expiry of the policy that i mistake was committed as to the extent of limits per passenger in Ex. B-3. It is also further dear from the submissions made by counsel of all parties that ever the Ex. B-5 endorsement was made without notice to the insured and without giving any opportunity to him to explain his position on this aspect. It is nobody’s case that insured was supplied with all information including tariff; and apprised of all facts in respect of the policy before he entered into contract with the insurer under Ex. B-3. Under the above circumstances, from a plain reading of Ex. B-3, it is not possible to think or doubt that limit per passenger was mentioned in Ex. B-3 by way of any mistake.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a case reported in Basappa Sangappa Kori v. Nenamall and Ors., . That is a case where Insurance Company pleaded that by mistake the policy was issued on a wrong format and ultimately on facts of the case, the plea of the Insurance Company was not accepted and the insurer was ordered to pay as per the terms of the policy issued.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on a Division Bench decision our High Court in Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma and Ors., . In this case, there were several blanks in the format of the insurance policy and the insurer tried to take advantage of those blanks and limit their liability as per Section 95 (b) (ii) of the M.V. Act. But, the court negatived their contention and found that the insurer’s liability was unlimited.
6. In view of the above legal position and facts of this case, I am of the view that there is no apparent mistake in Ex. B. 3 and the insurer’s liability is to the limit of Rs. 1,50,000/- per passenger. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Considering the abundant evidence in support of the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, learned counsel for the owner did not seriously dispute the correctness of the findings of the tribunal with regard to quantum.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.