JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - All these misc. appeals and the civil revision are taken up together for the sake of convenience. They arise out of applications by different claimants claiming compensation in respect of a motor accident involving motor car O.R.C 5704 on 25.3.63 while it was plying between Jaipur Road and Jaipur Town resulting in loss of life to some of the occupants and injury to others. 2. The motor vehicle involved in the accident was a Hindusthan Ambassador car which was registered in the name of the owner Mr. Ramlal Sharma, Respondent No. 2 in M.A. Nos. 110 to 112, Respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 127 of 1966 and opposite party No. 2 in C.R. No. 198 of 1966. It was registered as a private car with a seat-capacity of five including the driver, taxes having been paid till 31.3.63. Ramlal, however, had got it insured by the Hindusthan General Insurance Society Ltd., the Appellant in M.A. Nos. 110 to 112 and Petitioner in C.R. No. 198 of 1966 as a taxi and paid the prescribed premium. On 25.3.63, while the vehicle was plying for hire from Jajpur Road to Jaipur Town carrying 9 passengers, it met with an accident at about 9.30 a.m. which resulted in loss of life to some of the passengers and injury to others. Four applications u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation were filed against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. Three of them were filed by heirs of persons killed in the accident and one by an injured. They were registered as Misc. Case Nos. 48, 49, 50 and 52 of 1963. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1963 is the widow of Padma Charan Das aged about 27 years who died in the accident. She claimed compensation of Rs. 79,200/- alleging that the deceased had an income of about Rs. 200/- per month by working as a part-time postmaster, besides managing a book shop and attending to cultivation. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1963 is the widow of one Mansoor who also lost his life as a result of the accident. She claimed compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- alleging that her deceased husband was a business man earning a monthly income of about Rs. 1,000/-. The Petitioner in Misc. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1963 is the widow of one Mansoor who also lost his life as a result of the accident. She claimed compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- alleging that her deceased husband was a business man earning a monthly income of about Rs. 1,000/-. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 is the widow of one Sashi Bhusan Mohanty who died as a result of the accident. She claimed compensation of Rs. 2,49,600/-alleging that her husband aged 34 years at the time of the accident had an earning of about Rs. 800/- per month from his legal profession and profits from his business as a contractor. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 52 of 1963 Prafulla Kumar Mohanty who was one of the passengers in the vehicle claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained and the mental agony suffered by him, as a result of the accident. 3. The owner Ramlal Sharma in resisting the claims alleged that the petitions were not maintainable, as there was no privity of contract between him and the passengers who were traveling in the vehicle in question for safe carriage from Jaipur Road to Jajpur Town. While admitting that he was the owner of the vehicle in question, he alleged that it was his private car and he never plied or allowed it be plied for carrying passengers for hire. He permitted his friend, the deceased Sashi Bhusan the use of his car at his request. The latter, however, picked up some passengers on the way before the vehicle met with the accident. The said Sashi Bhusan should be deemed to be the owner of the car for the time being and as such he cannot be saddled with any liability. At the time of hearing, however, Ramlal Sharma did not appear and was set ex parte. 4. The said Sashi Bhusan should be deemed to be the owner of the car for the time being and as such he cannot be saddled with any liability. At the time of hearing, however, Ramlal Sharma did not appear and was set ex parte. 4. The Insurance Company resisted the claims on the following grounds: (1) The liability under the insurance policy is not enforceable against it, because the vehicle in question, though it was described as a taxi, had no route permit, a fact which was not disclosed to it, and as such, the policy is void ; (2) on the date of the accident, the vehicle was plied for hire and it carried 9 passengers without a permit in contravention of the terms of the policy and (3) it is not liable as 9 passengers were carried in the vehicle at the time of the accident against its registered capacity of 5. 5. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Cuttack) recorded the following findings: (1) The car in question was being plied as a taxi, i.e. carrying passengers for hire when the accident occurred ; (2) it was registered as a private car of Ramlal Sharma; (3) it carried 9 persons including the driver, 4 of them being in the front seat and 5 in the back ; (4) it was being driven at a high speed, the driver who was complaining of exhaustion due to over-work was rash and negligent in driving ; (5) the seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate was 5 including the driver ; (6) the vehicle was insured as a taxi cab and (7) it had no route permit for carrying passengers on hire. 6. On the above findings, the learned Tribunal allowed each of the applications in part. He awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1963 ; Rs. 5,000/- to the Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1963 and Rs. 15,000/- to the Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 against both the opp. parties limiting the liability of the Insurance Company in each of these cases to Rs. 4,000/- only. He awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation to the Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 52 of 963 against both the opp. parties. Opp. Party No. 2 in each of the misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 against both the opp. parties limiting the liability of the Insurance Company in each of these cases to Rs. 4,000/- only. He awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation to the Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 52 of 963 against both the opp. parties. Opp. Party No. 2 in each of the misc. cases which is the Insurance Company has preferred M.A. No. 110 of 1966 against the order in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1963 ; M.A. No. 111 of 1966 against the order in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 ; M.A. No. 112 of 1966 against the order in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1963 and C.R. No. 198 of 1966 against the order in Misc. Case No. 52 of 1963. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 has preferred M.A. No. 127 of 1966 for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded. The Petitioner in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1963 who is Respondent No. 1 and the owner of the vehicle Ramlal Sharma who is Respondent No. 2 in M.A. No. 110 of 1966 have preferred cross-appeals, the former challenging the quantum and the latter challenging his liability. In Misc. A. Nos. 111 and 112 of 1966, Respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle has preferred cross-appeals challenging his liability. 7. M.A. Nos. 110, 111 and 112 of 1966 and C.R. No. 198 of 1966 These three misc. appeals and the civil revision have been filed by the insurer challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in so far it purports to saddle it with liability for the compensation awarded in each of the cases. 8. The following findings are not disputed by learned Counsel for Appellant in the above misc. appeals and Petitioner in the civil revision: (1) Bamlal Sharma (Respondent No. 2 in the above misc. appeals and opp. 8. The following findings are not disputed by learned Counsel for Appellant in the above misc. appeals and Petitioner in the civil revision: (1) Bamlal Sharma (Respondent No. 2 in the above misc. appeals and opp. party No. 2 in the civil revision) who was the owner of the vehicle in question applied and got it insured as a taxi by paying the prescribed premium to the insurer on 25.2.63 ; (2) he, however, got it registered under the Motor Vehicles Act before the registering authority and paid taxes on it for user as a private car on 2.3.63 ; (3) on the date of accident, the vehicle was being plied as a taxi carrying passengers on hire and 9 passengers were being carried therein. Both in the registration certificate and the insurance policy, the seating capacity and the number of passenger to be carried are limited to 5 ; (4) the owner had no route permit to ply the vehicle as a taxi to carry passengers for hire ; (5) the accident occurred on the date in question, as a result of which, there was loss of life of some of the passengers and injury to others and (6) the accident was the result of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. 9. In all these cases, the common points urged in support of the contention that the insurer is not liable for any part of the compensation payable to the claimants are: (1) The contract of insurance is void and the insurer is not liable as the owner obtained the policy for user of the vehicle as a taxi suppressing the fact that it had not been registered as a taxi nor a route permit obtained for such user; (2) the insurer is not liable as the insured used the vehicle in contravention of express conditions embodied in the policy relating to the limitations for its user and (3) the insurance cover under the policy being limited to five passengers to be carried in the vehicle, there was breach of condition of the policy by the owner in carrying nine passengers at the time the accident occurred. 10. 10. Point No. 1 ?The first contention on behalf of the insurer is that while entering into a contract of insurance: a duty and an obligation rest on the assured to make a full disclosure of all the material facts which would effect the mind of the insurer in deciding whether to accept the risk or not. Where it is proved that the assured is guilty of non-disclosure or concealment of material facts, it will be open to the insurer to avoid the policy. In the present case, it is pointed out that the assured while submitting his proposal for obtaining a cover of the risk for plying the vehicle as a taxi to carry passengers for hire concealed the fact that it had not been registered as a taxi cab and a route permit had not been obtained. Therefore, the contract of insurance by which the insurer agreed to cover the risk to passengers is void and no liability can be attached to the insurer. This contention, in our opinion, is not acceptable for more than one reason. It is not disputed before us that the insurance in the present case was effected on 25 2.63 and the vehicle was registered thereafter on 2.3.63 and that according to the procedure, insurance precedes the registration of the vehicle. Therefore, by the date the proposal for insurance was given and the policy obtained, the vehicle not having been registered, it cannot be said that there was non-disclosure of the material facts relating to registration or route permit. Further, as we will indicate later, insurance to cover third party risk is a statutory requirement. The right of third parties to get compensation from the insurer being a statutory one is independent of the contractual rights and obligations between the insurer and the assured. Therefore, in our opinion, the question of nondisclosure or concealment of material facts by the assured from the insurer, while obtaining the insurance can have no effect on the statutory rights of third parties. 11. Point No 2 and 3?The next two contentions on behalf of the insurer are to the effect that the vehicle having been used in violation of an express condition in the policy relating to the limitations of its user and the assured having carried passengers in excess of the number stipulated in the policy, the insurer is exonerated from its liability to indemnify. In such cases, the liability, if any, must be shouldered by the owner alone. On the other hand, it is argued for Respondents in the above three misc, appeals and opp. parties in the civil revision that the insurer having accepted the statutory liability arising out of third party risk cannot escape the same on the ground that the assured committed breach of any of the conditions of the contract of insurance or indulged in mis-user of the vehicle. To consider the merits of the respective contentions, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions contained in Sections 94 to 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Chapter 8 of the Act, as its heading indicates, makes provision for insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. In other words, the object of the provisions contained in this Chapter is to ensure that third parties who suffer on account of user of motor vehicles would be able to get damages for the injuries sustained by them and their ability to get damages will not be dependent on the financial condition of the owner or driver of the vehicle. u/s 94 of the Act, a person is prohibited from using, causing or allowing any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place except as a passenger unless there exists a policy of insurance respecting user of that vehicle and the same complies with the requirements of Chapter 8. The policy, therefore, must provide insurance against any liability to third party incurred by the person when using that vehicle. u/s 95, the requirements to be complied with are ; firstly, the policy must specify the person or classes of persons who are insured with respect to their liability to third parties; secondly, the policy must specify the extent of liability which must extend to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) thereunder and thirdly, the liability which be incurred by the specified person or classes of persons in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle insured. Sub-section (4) thereof provides for issue of a certificate of insurance to the person who effects the policy and Sub-section (5) is as follows: 95 (5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. Thus, if the policy covers the insured for his liability to third parties, the insurer is bound to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. The same is the effect of Sub-section (1) of Section 96 which provides that the insurer is bound to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of a decree he obtains; in respect of any liability covered by the terms of the policy against any person insured, by the policy irrespective of the fact whether the insurer was entitled to avoid or cancel or might have avoided or cancelled the policy. Thus, the liability of the insurer to third parties who suffer injury or damage due to the use of the motor vehicle is statutory and not contractual. 12. Learned Counsel for Appellant in above three misc. appeals and for Petitioner in the civil revision, while not disputing this position, contends that in these cases the Insurance Company is not liable, because the assured used the vehicle in contravention of the limitations for user provided in the policy and also committed a breach of condition relating to the number of passengers to be carried. In support of this contention, he relies on paragraph 1 of Section II under the heading "Liability to third parties" which commences with the words "subject to the limits of liability, the Society will indemnify the insured" and the General Exceptions which provide that the Society shall not be liable under the policy in respect of any accident, loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred while the motor vehicle is being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use, and contends that the policy under the heading "Limitations as to use"' permits user only, under a contract carriage permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present cases, admittedly, the assured had not obtained a contract carriage permit, but used it for carrying passengers for hire. Therefore there was violation of an express condition regarding its user which exonerates the Appellant in the three misc. appeals and the Petitioner in the civil revision from its liability to indemnify. He relies on a decision Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Kannappa Naicker and Another, in support of the contention that a breach of condition exonerates the Insurance Company from its liability. The facts of that case are quite distinguishable. There, the vehicle was entrusted for repairs by the owner. After carrying out the repairs, the mechanic who had no licence to drive heavy vehicles took it on a test drive and committed the accident. In those circumstances, it was held that the mechanic was neither a servant nor an agent of the owner and the latter had no control over him at the time the accident occurred. Therefore, during that period, the insurance policy remained suspended. While coming to the above conclusion, it was observed: The use of the vehicle for an unpermitted purpose does not, in the absence of a clear provision to that effect, give the insurer a right to avoid the policy altogether for all times. But the operation of the policy is suspended during the period of unpermitted use and the consequent alteration of the risk. In the present cases, it has been found that the vehicle was used with the consent or under the authority of the owner in carrying passengers for hire, and therefore, it cannot be said that the policy can be construed as having remained suspended during such user. 13. The relevant point for consideration is whether the user of the vehicle in contravention of any of the conditions contained in the policy can exonerate the user from the statutory liability in respect of third party risk. In Ex. B under the heading "Avoidance of certain terms and right of recovery", it has been stipulated as follows: Nothing in this policy or any endorsement hereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 96. B under the heading "Avoidance of certain terms and right of recovery", it has been stipulated as follows: Nothing in this policy or any endorsement hereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 96. But the insured shall repay the Society all sums paid by the Society which the Society would not have been liable to pay but for the said provisions. It is clear from this clause that if u/s 96 of the Act, the Insurance Company is liable to third parties for the injury suffered by them, nothing contained in the policy will relieve it of its liability. This is made clear from Section 96(1) itself. The right to third parties to get indemnified by the statutory liability of the Insurance Company is not in any way affected by the manner of compliance or otherwise of the terms of contract between the insurer and the assured as contained in the policy. That is the reason why in the policy against the column 'Limitations as to use" it is mentioned under the heading "Important Notice" as follows: The insured is not indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with this Schedule. Any payment by the Society by reason of the wider terms appearing in the certificate in order to comply with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is recoverable from the insured. (See the clause headed 'Avoidance of certain terms and right of recovery'). From this, it is clear that the statutory liability of the insurer to compensate the third party claimants in order to comply with the provisions of the Act are not in any way affected, though in certain circumstances, if there be breach of conditions of the policy, the insurer may have a right to recover amounts paid by him to satisfy its obligation from the insured. This being the position, even though the vehicle in question was used in contravention of the conditions in the policy, while carrying passengers for hire, the insurer cannot escape its statutory liability, so far as third parties are concerned. Thus, we find no merit in these contentions. 14. This being the position, even though the vehicle in question was used in contravention of the conditions in the policy, while carrying passengers for hire, the insurer cannot escape its statutory liability, so far as third parties are concerned. Thus, we find no merit in these contentions. 14. It is next contended on behalf of the claimants that in the above four cases the insurer being statutorily liable, its liability cannot be limited to the amounts mentioned in Section 95(2)(b), but it will be liable for the amounts decreed in each case. According to them, under Sub-section (2), a policy of insurance shall cover liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the limits mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereunder. Clause (b) relates to cases where the vehicle is one in which passengers are carried for hire or reward, while Clause (c) deals with vehicles of other classes. In the above four cases, though the insurance policy was to cover risk for user of the vehicle to carry passengers for hire or reward, in fact, it was registered as a private car and was being plied as such at the time the accident took place. Therefore, it is argued that Clause (c) will apply and there can be no limitation to the liability of the insurer. This contention in our opinion, is not acceptable. Section 95(2) clearly relates to the insurance policy and it has nothing to do with the user of the vehicle. The policy in these cases was to provide cover with respect to risk to passengers to be carried for hire or reward and the liability of the insurer, therefore, will be governed by Clause (b) of Section 95(2) and not Clause (c), as contended. This being so, the learned Tribunal has rightly limited the liability of the insurer in respect of each of the claimants. For the reasons discussed, we find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the insurer in the above three misc. appeals and the civil revision. 15. Respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 110 of 1966 who is the claimant in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1953 in her cross-appeal has challenged the quantum of damages awarded. She made a claim of Rs. 79,200/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/-. appeals and the civil revision. 15. Respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 110 of 1966 who is the claimant in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1953 in her cross-appeal has challenged the quantum of damages awarded. She made a claim of Rs. 79,200/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/-. Her claim is based on the allegation that her husband who died in the accident had an income of about Rs. 200/- per month by working as a part-time postmaster, besides managing a book shop and attending to cultivation. It was found that the cultivation of land had not been adversely affected and according to her, as a part-time postmaster the monthly income of the deceased was ranging from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/-. Taking into consideration the normal expectancy of life as 60, the learned Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- and giving margin to expenses which he might have incurred had he continued to live, the loss of income was assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. This finding appears reasonable and in our opinion, does not call for interference. Therefore, we find no merit in this cross-appeal. 16. Respondent No. 2 in the three misc. appeals filed cross-appeals challenging his liability. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing for him conceded that there is no merit in these cross-appeals. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed. 17. M.A. No. 127 of 1966? This misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. She made a claim of Rs. 2,49,600/-on the allegation that her husband who died in the accident was aged 34 years and had an income of about Rs. 800/- per month from his legal profession and profits from contract. The learned Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- and awarded Rs. 15000/- in all. Of course, there is paucity of evidence about the income of the deceased who was a legal practitioner. The learned Tribunal seems to have been influenced in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs 1000/-by the fact that he was not an income tax Assessee and accounts of his income were not produced. Even assuming that his income can be assessed at Rs. The learned Tribunal seems to have been influenced in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs 1000/-by the fact that he was not an income tax Assessee and accounts of his income were not produced. Even assuming that his income can be assessed at Rs. 1000/-, if normal expectancy of life is considered to be 60 years, the deceased would have continued in the profession for at least 26 years more. Taking into consideration this fact, we think, the amount of compensation awarded at Rs. 15,000/-is too low and increase it to Rs, 25,000/-. To this extent, the misc. appeal is to be allowed 18. In the result, M.A. Nos. 110 to 112 of 1966 and C.R. No. 198 of 1966 are dismissed with costs. The cross-appeals filed therein be also dismissed. M.A No. 127 of 1966 be allowed in part with proportionate costs and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 be increased to Rs. 25,000/- and the decree modified accordingly, subject however, to the liability of the insurer being limited to Rs. 4,000/-. S. Acharya, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed