JUDGMENT
B.A. Khan, J.
1. The extent of appellant insurance company’s liability is the bone of contention in this appeal. Is it Rs. 15,000/- or Rs. 75,000/- is the question? M.A.C.T., Kathua, has fixed it at Rs. 75,000/- and that is why this appeal.
2. Facts lie in a brief compass. One Romesh Chander, an employee in the J.K.S.R.T.C, was killed while travelling in bus No. JKQ 627 along with a barat party on August 10,1982. His legal representatives filed the claim petition and the appellant company resisted it on the ground mat its liability was limited to Rs. 15,000/- as prescribed by law. The Tribunal rejected the contention and relying on (2) 1989 ACC 459 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anto-netta D’Souza 1987 ACJ 828 (Bombay), held as under:
Mr. Ravi Gupta appearing for the insurer has argued that the liability of the insurer is limited only upto Rs. 15,000/- and to support this he has referred to Christian Welfare Centre v. Sebastian 1988 ACJ 1058 (Kerala) and (2) 1987 ACC 262.
However, none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the case in view of the statutory liability fixed by Section 95 of the Act, as stated above. This view that the outer limit of statutory liability under Section 95 is Rs. 75,000/- finds support from the judgment of Bombay High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antonetta D’Souza 1987 ACJ 828 (Bombay), also. Accordingly the argument of Mr. Ravi Gupta that the liability of the insurer cannot exceed Rs. 15,000/- is erroneous and unsupported by the law.
3. The matter calls for interpretation of terms of Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’)-a provision which has suffered several amendments and interpretations in 1956, 1969, 1982 and finally in 1988. Given regard to divergence of views it has attracted, the section is reproduced as it stood prior to and after 1982 amendment:
Before amendment:
Section 95 (2). Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely-
(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;
(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of, or in pursuance of, a contract of employment,-
(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;
(ii) in respect of passengers,-
(1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers;
(2) a limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers;
(3) a limit of one lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers; and
(4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case.
After the amendment:
(2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely-
(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;
(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward, or by reason of, or in pursuance of, a contract of employment,-
(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;
(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger.
4. Section 95 of the Act is a compulsive provision and contains the requirements of policies of insurance, which must be taken by the owners of motor vehicles. Section 95 (2) as it existed before amendment in 1982 dealt with limits of liability of an insurer in case of motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward or by reason of, or in pursuance of, a contract of employment. Sub-Clause (i) of this section fixed liability in case of persons other than passengers at Rs. 50,000/- in all. Similarly, Sub-clause (ii) set out the liability in respect of death of or injury to passengers. In case of a vehicle registered for not more than 30 passengers, limit fixed was Rs. 50,000/- in all, for a vehicle registered for more than 30 but not more than 60 passengers Rs. 75,000/- in all and for a vehicle registered for more than 60 passengers Rs. 1,00,000/- in all. Sub-Clause (4) also provided a limit of Rs. 10,000/- for each individual passenger where the vehicle was motor cab and Rs. 5,000/- in any other case.
5. It would be manifest on a plain reading of pre-amended provision that two specific limits were fixed on the liability of insurer. The first related to aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident and the other referred to liability that an insurer incurred in respect of death of or injury to an individual passenger. The aggregate liability postulated the maximum amount payable by an insurer in the event of any one accident involving any number of passengers. Subject to the said limit of fixed aggregate liability, however, Clause (ii) (4) provided maximum amount payable by an insurer in respect of each passenger.
6. In simpler terms it meant that an insurer was liable to pay a maximum of Rs. 5,000/-in case of death of or injury to an individual passenger irrespective of the capacity for which a vehicle was registered. His aggregate liability as contained in the provision could vary depending upon the number of passengers a vehicle stood registered for, but the liability would in no case exceed the limit fixed, number of passengers involved in any one accident notwithstanding.
7. In other words, it was never intended that the aggregate liability of the insurer fixed in Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act would be the liability of insurer even when one passenger had died or suffered injuries on account of the accident. I derive support for this view from the Supreme Court judgment in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. PA. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC). Interpreting Section 95(2)(b), the court held as under:
Neither of the two limits can be ignored. In the present case, the vehicle in question being a bus carrying passengers for hire or reward registered for carrying more than 30 but not more than 60 passengers the limit of aggregate liability of insurer in any one accident was Rs. 75,000/-; subject to the said limit, the liability in respect of individual passenger was Rs. 5,000/-. We find it difficult to hold that limit prescribed in Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) was only the minimum liability prescribed by law. The amount mentioned in that provision was maximum amount payable by an insurance company in respect of each passenger who had suffered on account of the accident. This appears to be a fair construction of Section 95 (2) of the Act, as it existed before the amendment of 1982.
While holding so, the Supreme Court contradicted and considered Modi’s case 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) and Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta 1977 ACJ 134 (SC) and Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters’ Ins. Co. 1971 ACJ 206 (SC).
8. The amendment of the provision in 1982 which came into force on October 1, 1982, has clarified matters further. The recast section has done away with limits fixing aggregate liability. The only limit of liability fixed in case of an individual passenger now is Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, an insurer’s liability in respect of death of or injury to an individual passenger caused in a motor accident is only Rs. 15,000/- after amendment of 1982.
9. As would be seen from the discussion, the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in fixing insurance company’s liability at Rs. 75,000/-. The view taken is not in accord with legal position enunciated by the Apex Court in Kutty’s case 1987 ACJ 872 (SC). So is the reliance placed on clause entitled ‘Limits of liability’ in insurance policy misconceived.
10. In the present case, Section 95(2)(b), as it stood before 1982 amendment, was in force on the date of accident, i.e., August 10, 1982 (1982 amendment came into force on October 1, 1982). Therefore appellant company’s liability under the relevant provision would be only Rs. 5,000/-. But since it has admitted it to be Rs. 15,000/-, I have no option but to fix it at Rs. 15,000/-. The balance amount awarded shall be recoverable from the owner along with interest as imposed by the Tribunal.
11. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal set aside to the extent indicated hereinabove. Record be returned.