IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.9 of 2000 THE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY thrugh the Divisional Manager at Mohalla Motijheel, Town P.O. and P.S. and district – Muzaffarpur. ---- Opposite Party no.3 --- Appellant. Versus 1. MOST.RAMSATI DEVI, w/o- late Shyam Sundar Mishra resident of village and P.O. Barharwa Kala, tola hassanpur, P.S.- Harsidhi (Kotwa) District – East Champaran. ----(Applicant no.1) ----Respondent. 2. Geeta Devi, wife of Saroj Kumar Singh and daughter of Late Shyam sundar Misrha, resident of village and P.O. – Rampur Chapkahiya, P.S. – Gobindganj, District – East Champaran. ----(Applicant no.3) ----Respondent. 3. Gaitri Devi, Wife of Ramsagar Thakur and daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Mishra, resident of village and P.O. – Sarotar, P.S. – Khajuria, District – East Champaran. ----(Applicant no.4) ----Respondent. 4. Saiyawati Kumari 5. Renu Kumari 6. Seema Kumari 7. Anita Kumari 8. Sunita Kumari 9. Navin Kumar 10. Arun Kumar 11. Guddu Kumar 12. Muna Kumar Serial Nos. 4 to 12 are minor sons and daughters of Late Shyam Sundar Mishra, under the guardianship of their mother Mostt. Ramsati Devi the natural guardian. Serial Nos.4 to 12 are resident of village and P.O. – Barharwa Kala, tola hassanpur, P.S. – Harsidhi (Kotwa), District – East Champaran. (Serial Nos. 4 to 12 are applicants nos. 6 to 14 respectively) ----Respondents. 13. Bajrang Sikshit Barojgar Motor Pariwahan Sahyog Samiti, Baluatal, Motihari, through the Secretary, Ramadhar Panedy, son of Swaminand Pandey, resident of village – Taulaha, P.S. – at present Baluatal, Motihari Notice to be served thrugh Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sadar, Motihari Anchal, P.O. – Motihari, District – East Champaran. (Owner of Bus No. B.R.E. – 6896) ----(Opposite Party no.1) ----Respondent. - 2 - 14. State Bank of India, Branch Manager through its Branch Manager. ----(Opposite Party no.2) ----Respondent. 15. Gaya Rai, son of Narain Rai, village, P.O. – ,P.S. – Kessaria, (Khajuria), District – East Champaran. ----(Opposite Party no.4) ----Respondent. ------- For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Pd. Singh, Adv. For the respondent No.12: Mr. Arbind Kr. Sharma, Adv For the respondent no.13: Mr. B.K.M.Tripathi, Adv. ****** 29. 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents in two sets. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 27th September, 1999 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Champaran, Motihari in Claim Case No.10/4 of 1983/1991 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 21.05.1983 i.e. the date of filing of the case till realization excluding the period 20.03.1987 and 30.07.1988 during which claim case remain dismissed in default and liability was fixed upon the insurer the appellant. This is undisputed that on 31.12.1982 in a road accident, the deceased Shyam Sundar Mishra lost his life and vehicle involved bearing Registration No. B.R.E. – 6896 was - 3 - under valid insurance of the appellant. Rest of the things as regard to income of the deceased negligence on the part of vehicle etc. are not under challenge of course on behalf of the claimants. Cross objection has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount awarded. The main point in controversy in this appeal as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is that vehicle in question was though covered under insurance but there was limited liability up to Rs. 50,000/- of the insurer. Since on the date of accident, Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in operation and section 95(2) prescribes maximum of Rs. 50,000/- under cover. It is contended that the court below has on the basis of decision reported in 1994(2) T.A.C. 386 drew adverse inference against the insurer on the ground original copy or office copy of the insurance policy was not produced so considered the liability extended to unlimited one. Whereas required paper was there before the court below and owner avoided appearance. Learned counsel for the respondent claimant simply submitted that it is not his concern who is liable to pay the compensation - 4 - but he is only interested in getting the claims compensated further sought enhancement in the amount awarded but failed to produce any material for his such prayer regarding enhancement. Learned counsel for the respondent owner who on getting several adjournments submitted that order of the court below is justified but at the same time he failed to produce even one single chit of document showing payment of extra premium to the insurer or extension of liability beyond the maximum prescribed of Rs. 50,000/-. In this appeal, there is very limited scope and matter for determination. The relevant provision under section 95 of the M.V.Act 1939 reads as such: “95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability : (1) -- -- -- -- -- (2)Subject to the proviso to sub- section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to 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 - 5 - 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; (c) save as provided in clause (d), where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred; (d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit of rupees [six thousand and] in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party.]” As per the above provisions specifically as contained in section 95(2)(b)(i) and the vehicle involved not being goods vehicle the maximum limit of insurer is Rs. 50,000/-. It is bounden duty of owner to produce papers showing extra payment or extra liability of the insurer in absence whereof which is lacking in the instant case any liability in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is to be beared by the owner of the vehicle himself. It is not a case where is the accident took place after different amendments and enactments of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, had there been so the position could have been different. - 6 - Since, there is nothing on record nor anything was submitted specifically towards enhancement of award, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as regard to quantum of award but the impugned order only needs to be modified to this extent that out of amount so awarded Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid with interest by the insurer appellant, remaining amount with interest is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. With the above modification in the impugned order, this appeal along with cross appeal stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)