JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This special appeal under [SECTION] of the [ACT], has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned Single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the Act').
2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants No. 1 and 2 and [ENTITY] (respondent No. 1) under [SECTION] of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') by its award dated March 10, 1975, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under [SECTION] against the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and ordered that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] (appellants) and the [ENTITY] ('the Insurance Company' here in) should pay a sum of Rs. 31,500/- as compensation of them. The liability of the Insurance Company for the payment of compensation was fixed at Rs. 5000/- being statutory liability. It was further ordered by the learned Single Judge that the aforesaid amount will carry interest at rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal, i.e., March 10, 1978, until it is paid. This judgment, as stated above, was rendered on Feburary 7, 1985. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (appellants) have filed this special appeal against the Insurance Company and the claimants.
3. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge committed an error when he held that the liability of the Insurance Company will only be to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. Tne view taken by the learned Single Judge was assailed on the basis of the decision reported in [PRECEDENT] . On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge for the reasons given by him.
4. [SECTION] of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time was as follows:
(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 vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of goods, a limit of twenty thousand rupees;
(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, in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of twenty thousand rupees; and in respect of passengers a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, and four thousand in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver or two thousand rupees in respect of an individual passenger, if the vehicle is registered to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver;
(c) where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class the amount of the liability incurred.
Clause (b) was submitted for the original by the Amendment Act (No. LVI of 1[SECTION]9), w.e.f., March 2, 1970. Prior to this, over all liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2000/- per passenger if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six passengers. This over all liability was intended by the aforesaid Amendment upto Rs. 10,000/-depending upon the number of passengers the bus/vehicle is registered to carry and Rs. 5000/- per passenger depending upon the nature of the vehicle The amendment is, thus, regarding compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company.
5. We have carefully considered Motor Owners' Insurance Co.'s case , which has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge has stated that Motor Owners' Insurance Co.'s case related to the death caused in an accident by a goods vehicle and no occasion arose in that case for their Lordships to decide the liability of insurer in respect of an accident resulting from a passenger bus. We may usefully refer to para 26 of the report, in which reference has been made to [PRECEDENT] . It was stated in para 26 that Shekhpura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case is not an authority on the interpretation of [SECTION]. In support of that, observations made at page 1627 in Shekhpura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case by [ENTITY], J. speaking for himself and [ENTITY], J. have been quoted, which are as under:
In the present case ws are dealing with a vehicle in which more than six passengers were allowed to be carried. Hence the maximum liability imposed under [SECTION] on the insurer is Rs. 2000/- per passenger though, the total liability may go upto Rs. 20000/-
We may here refer to the observations made in this connection in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case , which are as under:
Towards the end of the judgment, it was observed that reading the provisions contained in [SECTION] and [SECTION] together.
it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to indentify the insured is a prescribed in [SECTION]. Hence the High Court was right in its conclusion that the liability of the insurer in the present case only extends in upto Rs. 2000/- each, in the case of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]". In view of the limit on the insurer's liability in respect of each passenger, the argument on the construction of the words, "any one accident" had no relevance and was, therefore, neither made nor considered by the Court. Different considerations may arise under Clause (b), as amended by Act 56 of 1[SECTION]9, but we do not propose to make any observations on that aspect of the matter, since it does not directly arise before us.
A perusal of para 2 of the report will show that the case related to [SECTION] of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (1) cannot be taken to be an authority for the purpose of interpreting [SECTION] of the Act. It was held in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case that in the absence of any contract to the contrary the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured is as prescribed in [SECTION] of the Act as it stood then. This case was of course distinguished, as stated above, in paras 25 and 26 in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case . The principle laid down in Shekhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case wherein [SECTION] of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment is applicable, to the case on hand and according to that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claims upto Rs. 5000/- only under [SECTION] of the Act. This was taken by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] where, one of us ([ENTITY], J.) after considering a number of cases, including [PRECEDENT] and Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case held that under [SECTION] the statutory liability of the Insurance Co. is only upto Rs. 5000/- and not beyond that. The unamended [SECTION] of the Act came up for consideration before [ENTITY], J., in [PRECEDENT], it was held that there is a ceiling of Rs. 5000/- in case of passengers in vehicle other than motor cab as enshrined in Sub-clause (4), and the insurance company would be liable to pay Rs. 5000/- for each individual passenger travelling in a bus as is covered by [SECTION] of the Act. We may mention that this view was also taken by the Kerala High Court in [PRECEDENT] in which, after considering Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case , it was observed as under:
Reliance on the above passages may at the first flush appear to be sound. But it can be seen that the plaintiff cannot sustain the support that he seeks from the passages quoted above. It has to be noted that the Supreme Court in that case was concerned with [SECTION], as it existed on February 1, 1[SECTION]6, when the collision in that case took place. The Supreme Court referred to the changes that [SECTION] underwent from time to time and traced its history to appreciate the scope of the contention raised in that case. It was after considering the section as it stood after amendment by the [ACT] that it was held that the Insurance Company could be made liable for an amount in excess of the statutory limit of Rs. 20,000/- as it stood then, and that on the basis that each injured was involved in a separate accident. The question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in that case was whether the award of damages of Rs. 29,125/- to the legal representatives of the driver who died in the accident and the passenger who travelled in the car was proper, in view of the limit of Rs. 20,000/-fixed by the section as it then stood. We do not think it necessary to consider the applicability of the ratio of that decision for the reason that we are in this case concerned with the section as it stands after the amendment brought to [SECTION] of the [ACT] by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act (55 of 1[SECTION]9), which came into force on 2nd March, 1970. By the said amendment, [SECTION] has been introduced which reads as follows:
(4) Subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor car and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case.
(This clause has not been correctly quoted in the report appearing in the decision). The plaintiff's counsel found it extremely difficult to reconcile his submission with this Sub-clause. He could not pursue his submissions based on the ratio of the decision under reference when confronted with this Sub-clause. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the case in view of the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the the above decision. We hold that the decision could be distinguished on its facts. The section applicable in the present case is the amended [SECTION] as it now stands with effect from 2nd March, 1970. Clause (4) limits the claim of each individual passenger in a case like this to Rs. 5000/-. Therefore, we held that the appellant in [CASE NUMBER] could be made liable only for an amount of Rs. 5000/- in respect of each injured individual passenger and that the decree against the 3rd defendant has to be modified accordingly restricting its liability to Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/-decreed by the Court below.
The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the principles laid down in Sheikhpura Transport Co. Ltd.'s case are attracted in this case and according to that of the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 5000/-only under [SECTION] of the Act. Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants is clearly distinguishable.
6. The view taken by the learned Single Judge limiting the liability of the Insurance Co. to the extent of Rs. 5000/- is correct and no interference is called for the appeal.
7. No other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal.
8. The result is that this appeal fails and it is, hereby, dismissed.
9. In the cirsumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.