P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THE Insurance Company is the appellant Respondents 1 and 2 herein came forward with an application for award of compensation for the death of their son. It is the case of respondents 1 and 2 herein that on 13/06/1978 the deceased was traveling in a rickshaw No. GRS 251 from village Bhat to Sabarmati Tol Naka and when the rickshaw was near the cross-road at Koba Circle and was moving towards Sabarmati Tol Naka at the all of a sudden the rickshaw turned turtle and due to the accident the deceased Ashokkumar Ranchhodbhai Patel received injuries and there- upon he as removed to the hospital and there he succumbed to the said injuries and dice. It was further contended that due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent herein the accident occurred and as a result of which the son of respondents 1 and 2 expired. The Insurance Company filed the written statement latter alia contending that the claim filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein is exaggerated that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 5 0 as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and was not carried for hire or reward and that therefore the Insurance Company is not liable. It is unnecessary to refer to the contentions of the other opponent in the claim petition. the Tribunal after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicants who are respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20 100 from opponents 1 and 2 in the claim application together with interest thereof at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the application till payment or realization with proportionate costs. As against this Award the Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal. Mr. P. V. Nanavaty the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Companys liability as regards the passenger who was traveling in the vehicle which was involved in the accident is limited to Rs. 10 0 and hence the award of Rs. 20 100 made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. Mr. P. V. Nanavaty the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Companys liability as regards the passenger who was traveling in the vehicle which was involved in the accident is limited to Rs. 10 0 and hence the award of Rs. 20 100 made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. ( 2 ) AS far as the present case is concerned we have gone through the Insurance policy the cover note and the facts of the case. The insurance policy under section II deals with the liability answerable by the Insurance Company. It states:"subject to the limits of liability the Company will namely the insured against all sums including claimants cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "thus we find the words subject to the limits of liability and the words all sums. This was the subject matter of interpretation by a Five Judges Bench of our High Court in First Appeal No. 1439/79 with First Appeals Nos. 1440 and 1441 of 1979 dated 25/01/1985 In that judgment the Bench observed as follows:"the appellant Insurance Company pleads special defense on the basis of the condition in the insurance policy which excludes use of the insured vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Now so far as the policy ex. 48 is concerned it is an office copy of the insurance policy produced by the appellant company itself. Sec. II of the policy ex. 48 refers to the liability to third parties. It states as under: "subject to the limits of liability the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) Damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) Damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. Provided always that (a) The company shall not be liable in respect of death injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriage-way or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the motor vehicle for loading thereon or the taking away of the load from the motor vehicle after unloading therefrom. (b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 in relation to liability under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 the company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which claim arises. (d) The company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the insured or a member of the insureds household or being conveyed by the motor vehicle. (e) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to any bridge and or weigh bridge and or viaduct and or to any road and or anything beneath by vibration or by the weight of the motor vehicle and or load carried by the motor vehicle. (f) The company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property caused by sparks or ashes from the motor vehicle or caused by or arising out of the exploitation of the boiler of the motor vehicle. (f) The company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property caused by sparks or ashes from the motor vehicle or caused by or arising out of the exploitation of the boiler of the motor vehicle. (g) The company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the explosion of the boiler of the motor vehicle unless such death or injury is caused by or arises out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place in India the meaning of the Motor vehicle Act 1939. (emphasis supplied)". Now a look at the aforesaid terms of the policy shows that subject to any other prescribed limits of liability in any other part of the policy the company has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. These terms are very wide in nature and would ex-facie cover the claims in the present case. Mr. P. V. Nanavati for the appellant also fairly stated that none of the terms (a) to (y) would cover the present cases. If that is so it must be held that in the light of the aforesaid terms of the policy if any claim arises in connection with death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of use of the motor vehicle such claim would be protected by the insurance cover unless of course there are only other limits of liability prescribed in the policy elsewhere. For that purpose Mr. Nanavati invited our attention to the colt on the bottom of the schedule annexed to the policy ex. 48. That column refers to limitation as to use. A rubber stamp affixed in that column refers to public carrier. The rubber stamp reads as under: use only under a public carriers permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 the Policy does not cover- xxx xxx xxx (3) Use for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward". It is obvious that the aforesaid rubber stamp found in the copy of the policy ex. 48 refers to limitation as to use of the public carrier. It is obvious that the aforesaid rubber stamp found in the copy of the policy ex. 48 refers to limitation as to use of the public carrier. Now it is an admitted position between the parties that the insured vehicle in question is not a public carrier but a private carrier goods vehicle. Under these circumstances the afore- said rubber stamp affixed to the copy of the policy ex. 48 laying down limitation as to use will not apply to the vehicle in question. May be that a wrong rubber stamp might have been affixed by the personnel of the insurance company while issuing the insurance policy Be that as it may the fact remains that so far as copy of the insurance policy produced by the insurance company itself at ex. 48 is concerned there is no proper rubber stamp covering the vehicle in question and laying down any special condition restricting its use or laying down any limitation as to its use. The result is that it must be held that there is no limitation as to use or no special condition about the same affixed to the policy in question which covers the insured vehicle. If that is so it met be held. On account of the general wording of the clause 1 of sec. II of the insurance policy extracted above that the insurance company in its wisdom extended the contractual coverage of insurance to all claims arising on account of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle. Once it is so held it is obvious that the insurance company will be liable to answer the claims not on account of any statutory requirements of coverage of such claims but on account of the extension of contractual coverage of insurance on the express wording of the insurance policy itself. The rubber stamp regarding public carrier as affixed in the column laying down condition as to limitation as to use being irrelevant will remain inoperative and otiose". In all force the said decision applies to the facts of this case and the clauses mentioned therein are in pari materia the same as clauses mentioned in the policy in question. Bearing the effervesced principles enunciated by the Full Bench we can now look at the insurance policy and the cover note. In all force the said decision applies to the facts of this case and the clauses mentioned therein are in pari materia the same as clauses mentioned in the policy in question. Bearing the effervesced principles enunciated by the Full Bench we can now look at the insurance policy and the cover note. We have also extracted section II of the insurance policy wherein it is stated that the insurance company is liable for all sums subject to the limits of liability mentioned in that section. We have to find out whether any limit has been prescribed by the Insurance Company for answering the claim of the insured in the Schedule to the policy In the Schedule to the policy under the caption Limits of liability we find the figure 50 0 is noted. In the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1977 S. C. 1735 the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that if there is any contractual liability undertaken apart from the statutory liability under sec. 95 the Insurance Company is answerable to that contractual liability dehors the statutory liability under sec. 95. In the insurance policy the Insurance Company has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or Bodily injury to any person caused by are arising out of use (including the loading and or unloading) of he the Vehicle. This liability wherein the Insurance Company has taken on itself to answer was exactly the subject matter of inter- partition by the Full Bench referred above and the said Full Bench has held that the damage asked for by the passenger of the vehicle is covered by the said policy. We have already found that the Schedule to the policy has not prescribed any limitation for answering such claim of any person. Hence the liability imposed upon the Insurance Company by the Tribunal in our view is correct and cannot be interfered with. For all these reasons the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (ATP) appeal dismissed. .