JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara, dated 30.9.1987 awarding Rs. 2,20,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimants against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. The facts of the case may be summarised thus: The deceased Jawahar Lal Kapoor was travelling in taxi car No. RRT 557 on 10.5.1984. It was being driven by its owner Ramesh Chandra rashly and negligently. As a result thereof, it fell down in a deep ditch. Ramesh Chandra and Jawahar Lal Kapoor died on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased Jawahar Lal (claimants) filed the claim petition against the heirs and successors of Ramesh Chandra, owner-cum-driver of the taxi car and its insurer, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd.The claim petition was resisted by the non-petitioners. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the said amount as compensation.
3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the liability of the appellant was to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only as provided in Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants and owner that the insurance policy of the said offending taxi car No. RRT 557 was comprehensive and as such the Tribunal has held the appellant liable to the full extent.
5. There is a great force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Section 95(2)(b)(ii), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides the maximum amount payable by an insurer in respect of each passenger who had suffered on account of the accident and not the minimum liability. Reference to M.K. Kunhi-mohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), may be made here. It has been held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), that comprehensive insurance of the vehicle entitles the owner to claim the reimbursement of the damage suffered by the vehicle and it does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. Chand Kanwar v. Mannaram 1986 ACJ 269 (Rajasthan), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Tribunal, does not correctly lay down the law. It is against the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the appellant) is liable to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. The award of the Tribunal dated 30.9.1987 is modified to this extent.
7. The parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.