N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company the opponent No. 3 in the Motor Accident Claim Application No. 118 of 1974 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Vadodara that was pleased to award to the respondent No. 1 the original claimant the sum of Rs. 23 0 with 6% running interest from the date of the application and with costs. The respondent No. 2 herein is the driver of the vehicle and the respondent No. 3 is its owner. The vehicle involved was rickshaw No. GYB 8042 driven at about 4-30 P. M. on 19-11-1973 on a public road near Kareli Baug Vadodara by the opponent No. 1 Ganibhai in the course of his employment with the owner the opponent No. 2 who was the insured of the insurance company which is the appellant before us. The driver the owner and the Insurance company were made liable for the amount awarded though initially the claim put forward by the claimant in the petition was Rs. 30,000. 00. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimant was that on that day he had boarded that rickshaw a public conveyance from refinery and was going towards Panigate that the rickshaw was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and its speed was abnormal that when the rickshaw was passing by the public road near Kareli Baugh the driver was required to negotiate curve and that as he was driving the rickshaw at an excessive speed the rickshaw had turned turtle and the claimant who was travelling by that rickshaw came to fall beneath the rickshaw with the violent impact and the result was that he was seriously injured and on being taken to the Government Hospital at Vadodara he was treated for the compound fracture lower 3rd shaft left femur. The wound was swelling deformity had developed and bleeding was present. The initial treatment did not save the leg of the victim and on the 4th day his leg above the knee was required to be amputated. He had thereafter filed the above mentioned claim application. The injuries and the subsequent operation are deposed to by Dr. Modi Ex. 33. The wound was swelling deformity had developed and bleeding was present. The initial treatment did not save the leg of the victim and on the 4th day his leg above the knee was required to be amputated. He had thereafter filed the above mentioned claim application. The injuries and the subsequent operation are deposed to by Dr. Modi Ex. 33. Though the accident had taken place at about 630 P. M. the injured had gone to the hospital at about 9-30 P. M. ( 3 ) AS far as the incident is concerned the only evidence thereon the record is that of the injured at Ex. 37 and that of the opponent No. I driver Ganibhai Ex. 39. The injured categorically staled that the rickshaw had turned turtle while the opponent No. 1 was negotiating the turn despite the excessive speed of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion put to him that a cyclist had suddenly come up and in order to avoid collision with him the opponent No. 1 had applied the brakes and at that time he had jumped out of the rickshaw and so he was injured. The evidence of the driver Ganibhai however did not contain any statement to the effect that the applicant had jumped out and had come to sustain the injuries afterwards. Only thing that was spoken to him was that the applicant who was sitting on the left-hand side of the rear side of the rickshaw had tried to jump out of the rickshaw and was crushed beneath the vehicle. Had the vehicle been in motion and had the injured left the vehicle as was sought to be suggested to him he would not have been under the vehicle which was admittedly in motion. It is because of this that the driver had to say that the victim had simply tried to jump out of the rickshaw but he avoided saying that he had successfully jumped out. The drivers evidence further established that that being the time of 4 P. M. the road was humming with traffic and the incident had taken place at the inter section of four roads. These circumstances show that Ganibhai the driver was expected to lower down his speed because of the inter Section of four roads and because of the heavy traffic on the road. These circumstances show that Ganibhai the driver was expected to lower down his speed because of the inter Section of four roads and because of the heavy traffic on the road. Had he done so the arrival of the cyclist assuming it was there would not have made him apply his brakes so suddenly to as overturn the vehicle. The defence version therefore was absolutely difficult to be accepted and so the only version that is left before us is that of the injured person who had turned unconscious only after he was having the vehicle on his body. He could have noted how the vehicle had turned turtle and how it bad come to be on his body. It was therefore rightly held by the learned Tribunal that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the rickshaw. Regarding the amount awarded also there cannot be any quarrel. A young man lost his leg and even the amount of Rs. 23 000/awarded to him is not an adequate compensation for it. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal had held that the applicant had jumped out of the rickshaw and had therefore ceased to be a passenger and therefore he was a third party. With respects we have to say that this is quibbling of words. As we have already pointed out there is no evidence on record to show that the claimants had successfully got out of the vehicle so as to be named not as a passenger but as a third party and then he was knocked down by the rickshaw. Sense of sympathy with a troubled soul is appreciable but justice is to be dispensed with in accordance with law and law alone. Law cannot be multilated to express moral sense. Even by alleged jumping out even if assumed to be true will be because he was a passenger. ( 5 ) HOWEVER the insurance-company the appellant herein has raised the question of the extent of the liability of the company. Under sec. 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 a policy of insurance is required to cover the liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the limits laid down there. ( 5 ) HOWEVER the insurance-company the appellant herein has raised the question of the extent of the liability of the company. Under sec. 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 a policy of insurance is required to cover the liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the limits laid down there. In clause (b) the limit laid down for a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or by reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment the limit is Rs. 50 0 in all where the vehicle is registered to carry out more than 35 passengers. The rickshaw in question would obviously be such a vehicle and so the upper limit of liability would be Rs. 50 0 in the aggregate. Clause (4) of sub-sec. (ii) of sec. 95 however further provides that subject to the limits aforesaid that is Rs. 50 0 the liability of the insurer shall be Rs. 10 0 for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab and Rs. 5000/for each individual passenger in any other case. Relying upon this latter part of clause (4) of sub-sec. (iii) of sec. 95 Mr. Vakil urged that the applicant was not entitled to claim more than Rs. 5000/from the insurance company. As far as the statutory liability of the insurance company is concerned the position has been set at rest by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMONWEALTH ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. VIMALABEN WIDOW OF HRISHCHANDRA CHHOTALAL AND OTHERS First Appeal No. 516 of 1972 decided on 26-3-1973 J. B. Mehta speaking for himself and S. H. Sheth J. In that case the award made by the Tribunal against the Insurance company was reduced to Rs. 10,000. 00. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the claimant however urged that there was a special contract to extent the liability and Endorsement No. 13 was pressed into service for the purpose. We quote below the said endorsement in its entirety:- "endorsement no. 13:- attaching to and forming of policy no. 9568/cc/72 liability TO PASSENGERSIN consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 24/notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sec 11. We quote below the said endorsement in its entirety:- "endorsement no. 13:- attaching to and forming of policy no. 9568/cc/72 liability TO PASSENGERSIN consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 24/notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sec 11. 1 (c) but subject otherwise to the terms exception conditions and limitation of this policy the company will indemnify the insured against the liability at law for compensation (including law cost of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under sec. 11 1 (b) being carried in or entering or mounting or alighting from any vehicle prescribed in the schedule hereto but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. 5000 in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. 5000/in respect of any number of claims in connection with any one such vehicle arising out of one cause. PROVIDED always that in the event of an accident occurring whilst such vehicle is carrying more than the number of persons mentioned in the Schedule hereto as being the licenced carrying capacity of that vehicle in addition to the conductor if any then the insured shall repay to the company a ratable proportion of the total amount which would be payable by the company by reason of this endorsement if not more than the said number of persons were carried in the vehicle. PROVIDED further that in computing the number of persons for the purpose of this endorsement any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as to persons and any children in the arms not exceeding years of age will be disregarded. PROVIDED also that the provisions of condition 3 of the policy are also applicable to a claim or series of claims under this endorsement. PROVIDED further that in the event of the policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. SUBJECT otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy. Bombay. Sd/- 29-11-1972 for custodian". IT was urged that in consideration of the additional premium of Rs. 24/the liability to indemnify upto Rs. 50 0 was undertaken by the company. SUBJECT otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy. Bombay. Sd/- 29-11-1972 for custodian". IT was urged that in consideration of the additional premium of Rs. 24/the liability to indemnify upto Rs. 50 0 was undertaken by the company. It is difficult for us to accept the said submission despite our immense sympathy for the poor victim in this case. All that endorsement 13 provides is that though under the term. of the policy the company was not liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person other than a person being carried in or entering or mounting or alighting from any vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claim arises the company had undertaken to indemnify the insured against the liability at law for compensation for death of or bodily injury to any person other than an employee being carried in or entering or mounting or alighting from any vehicle prescribed in the schedule but such indemnity was limited to the sum of Rs. 5000/in relation to any one person. The said clause proceeds then to state that subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any person that is subject to the limit of Rs. 5000/in respect of one person the company had undertaken to indemnify the insured to the maximum amount of Rs. 50 0 in respect of any number of claims (that is claims more than one in number) in connection with any one such vehicle arising out of one cause. In other words the maximum guarantee is not Rs. 50 0 but it is the ceiling of the liability that is provided for. The clause subject to the aforesaid liability in respect of any one person is repeated while speaking of the total liability of Rs. 50 0 in respect of any number of claims arising out of one single cause of action. We are therefore unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Amin for the original claimant. ( 7 ) AT this stage we cannot refrain form expressing our concern at the lot of the people travelling by public conveyances. The provision of clause (4) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act in our view are anachronistic when the common people are required to be carried in a vehicle for hire or reward. ( 7 ) AT this stage we cannot refrain form expressing our concern at the lot of the people travelling by public conveyances. The provision of clause (4) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act in our view are anachronistic when the common people are required to be carried in a vehicle for hire or reward. If necessary more premium could be charged from the owners of such public vehicles but in the interest of the common people of this country this invidious discriminatory treatment requires to be immediately done away with. The present case is a glaring case in which a poor young man is for all practical purposes without any compensation because Mr. Amin tells us that for aught he knows the award for the rest of the amount of Rs. 18 0 may not be available for effective execution in substance. ( 8 ) THE appeal is therefore required to be allowed and the liability of the appellant insurance-company for the award passed by the Tribunal is limited to Rs. 5000. 00. Subject to this modification the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. ( 9 ) THIS brings us to the cross-objections filed by the original claimants. The claim in cross-objections as modified is for Rs. 7000. 00. As the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 5000/alone these cross-objections cannot be entertained by us. On this short ground they are rejected with na order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .