JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-insurance company raises a very small question by this appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal under the [ACT] awarding Rs. 42,000 (Rupees forty-two thousand) as compensation to respondent No. 1, a third person, widow of the deceased. By the mini bus, bearing No. BHN 5621, belonging to respondent No. 2, Sri [ENTITY], the husband of the claimant, respondent No. 1, sustained injuries on March 8, 1976, in the morning at Ratu Road which resulted in his death.
2. Learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, raised only one point that under the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the extent of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) as the deceased was not a passenger in the bus in question but was only a pedestrian, that is, he was a third party. It is not possible to accept this contention as apart from the fact that [SECTION] of the said Act speaks or "damages to any property of any third party". Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) thereof clearly provides for awarding compensation in respect of a third party, that is, persons other than passengers carried in the vehicle which was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) before the amendment of the year 1969 and is Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) thereafter. The occurrence in question had taken place after this amendment. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], the date of the occurrence would be relevant for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation, it has got to be held that the case of the present claimant is covered by the above provision made in Clause (d), which has been inserted subsequently in-the 1939 Act, makes the insurance company further liable to pay in respect of damages to property to the extent of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) only. The learned counsel, however, placed reliance upon the case of [PRECEDENT], which was also followed by a Bench of this court, to which one of us, [ENTITY] J., was a party in [CASE NUMBER], where no doubt an observation has been made that "in absence of any, contract to the contrary, the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured in the case of a vehicle allowed to carry more than six passengers, extends only up to Rs. 2,000 in respect of each passenger and the total liability would not go beyond Rs. 20,000". But it appears that the attention of the learned judges of the Supreme Court was not drawn to the provision of Clause (b) mentioned above. Be that as it may, as there was no other decision at that time, this court was bound to follow that decision in [CASE NUMBER]. But now the learned counsel for the claimant has cited, apart from [PRECEDENT], another case of [PRECEDENT], where compensation was given with reference to the provisions of [SECTION] of the aforesaid Act.
3. It is, therefore, clear that the liability of Rs. 42,000 (forty-two thousand) is within the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand). In this view of the matter, the learned counsel again contended that although the insurance company's liability may be to the extent of the amount awarded, the owner of the vehicle should not be left untouched and, therefore, in the interest of equity, there should be an apportionment of the liability. I, accordingly, would make the appellant-company liable to pay to the extent of Rs. 30,000 (thirty thousand) only and the owner of the vehicle, namely, respondent No. 2, for the balance of the amount of Rs. 12,000 (twelve thousand) which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of payment. The appellant-company has already deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) by virtue of an order of this court in the stay matter. The remaining sum of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) must be deposited within two months from today failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed.
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part in view of the apportionment of the amount of compensation as mentioned above and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, however, I shall not make any order as to costs.