F.A.O.No.2277 of 1996. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.2277 of 1996. Date of decision:1.2.2008. National Insurance Company Limited. ...Appellant. Versus Surinder Kumar and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: None. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. National Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.3 has preferred the present FAO against the award dated 1.5.1996 passed by Shri V.P.Chaudhary, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak by which compensation of Rs.40,000/- was awarded to Surinder Kumar, claimant against the Insurance Company, appellant, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing petition till realization of awarded amount. One Surinder Kumar, partner of M/s Bharat Spinning Mills, F.A.O.No.2277 of 1996. -2- Hansi, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of damage to the cotton yarn loaded in Canter No.HYH-2128. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter by Bhim Singh, respondent No.1. Feeling dis-satisfied with the abovesaid compensation, the Insurance Company, appellant has filed the present appeal. The only ground of appeal is that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs.6,000/- in respect of damage to the property and that the Insurance Company is not to indemnify in respect of goods carried in a vehicle insured with the appellant-Company. I have carefully considered the said submission made in the grounds of appeal but do not find any force in that submission. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount in respect of property damaged in the vehicle. ` The other ground of appeal that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs.6,000/- is belied by the terms of policy, Exhibit R2. Special premium of Rs.75/- has been paid for increasing property damage limit to the third party. The Insurance Company is bound by the terms of its policy by which the statutory limit of Rs.6,000/- has been enhanced by taking Rs.75/-. In view of above discussion, no ground for interference in F.A.O.No.2277 of 1996. -3- the award of the learned Tribunal is made out and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. File of the Court below be returned after due compliance. February 1,.2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge