FAO No.1196 of 1992 & -1- X-Objection No.6-CII of 1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1196 of 1992 & X-Objection No.6-CII of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: January 25, 2011 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY ...APPELLANT VERSUS DIDAR SINGH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3. MR. ANIMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 - X-OBJECTOR. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The appeal by the insurance company is on the issue of liability under the terms of the policy. The Tribunal determined the compensation payable at `90,000/- and awarded the same against the insurer holding that in respect of the persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, the liability will have to be taken as unlimited. I have seen the terms of the policy and the liability as set out in the term of the policy is that “in respect of anyone accident it shall be such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1939.” The insured's vehicle was a mini-bus authorized to carry 36 passengers. The relevant provision will FAO No.1196 of 1992 & -2- X-Objection No.6-CII of 1993 be Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The claimant was a third party and as per the provisions of the Act in respect of a claim for persons other than passengers carried for higher reward, the limit of liability was only `50,000/-. The interpretation cast by the Tribunal was erroneous and against the bare reading of the said provision. The liability of the insurance company shall, therefore, stand restricted to only `50,000/- with interest and the amount in excess shall be recoverable by the Modern Higher Secondary School, Patiala represented through the Principal/Manager. The award is modified as regards the liability and the appeal is allowed. X-Objection No.6-CII of 1993 There are x-objections at the instance of the owner of the bus. In the appeal by the insurer against the award the issue could be whether the liability could be restricted or not. The x-objections cannot relate to the quantum of compensation which is a dispute between the claimant and the owner. Without preferring an independent appeal there could be no x- appeal as regards the restriction of liability. In any event, the quantum of compensation awarded already does not suffer from any vice of excessiveness for subjecting to any reduction in the claim. The x-objections are consequently dismissed. January 25, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE