JUDGMENT 1. - The New India Assurance Co. has preferred the above named 8 appeals against the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer on 4.4.95 in Claim Petitions No. 33/92, 35/92, 37/92, 38/92, 51/92, 52/92, 53/92 & 92/92. 2. The accident had taken place on 1.1.92 on Barmer-Jaisalmer National Highway No. 15. There was head on collision of Truck RJC 5727 (to be hereinafter referred to as "the Nisan Truck") and Truck No. 04/G-0177 (to be hereinafter referred to as "the L.P. Truck"). In the accident besides the drivers of both the trucks Nakhat Singh and Rane Khan, 5 more persons lost their lives and 3 persons sustained injuries. The Nisan truck was badly damaged. Injured Usman, Nizam and Adam Khan for the injuries; Kalya Chand for the damage of the truck, Babbar Kanwar & Ors. LRs of Rane Khan, Smt. Mishra & Ors. LRs. of Bhika Khan, Nemichand husband of Smt. Dharmi, Khinvraj & Ors. LRs. of Bhoor Chand filed separate claim petitions impleading Dhule Khan, the owner of LP Truck and the New India Assurance Co., the Insurer. The matter proceeded ex parte against the owner Dhule Khan.Adam Khan, Mishra Bai and Usman impleaded the owner and the Insurer of Nisan Truck also as the non-petitioners. The reply of the New India Assurance Co. (Appellant) was that it was a case of contributory negligent of the two truck drivers. The Tribunal framed various issues in all the cases and examined witnesses separately in each case, however, decided all the claim petitions by one judgment dated 4.4.95. Since all these matters arise out of one judgment-and have been heard together, all these are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Co. was that the liability of the Insurance Co. for the property was limited to the extent of Rs. 6,000 and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in decreeing the entire amount against the Insurance Co. in the Claim Petitions No. 53/92, 37/92 and 38/92. The next contention of Mr. Vyas was that Adam Khan was Khalasi on the truck and as such the award in Case No. 92/92 could not exceed the compensation which could be awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act by virtue of proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The next contention of Mr. Vyas was that Adam Khan was Khalasi on the truck and as such the award in Case No. 92/92 could not exceed the compensation which could be awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act by virtue of proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The next contention was that excessive amount has been awarded in Claim Petition Nos. 33/92, 35/92, 38/92, 51/92 & 52/92. Mr. Vyas also contended that the Tribunal has held United India Insurance Co. also liable in respect of the Claim Petition No. 52/92 and therefore, it must be held that the accident had occurred because of the mistake on the part of both the drivers and the liability should be apportioned. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents contended that' the Insurance Co. has no right to challenge the quantum of the award in view of the provisions of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and, that when the claim is fled under the Motor Vehicles Act, limit of Workmen's Compensation Act does not come in the way of the Tribunal to grant just compensation. Learned counsel for the respondents have cited the following cases : Suresh Chand v. State of U.P., 1995 (6) SCC 628 ; British India General Insurance Co. v. Cap. Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1338 ; United India Insurance Co. v. Shiv Raj, 1992 ACJ 1039 and New India Assurance Co. v. Lad Kanwar, 1994 ACJ 105 . 5. Taking up the last argument of Mr. Vyas first that the Tribunal has held the Insurer of Nisan Truck also liable and therefore on the principle of contributory negligence, the amount should be apportioned, I may state that there appears a slip in the last para of the judgment of the Tribunal: The last para reads as under:- " pwafd nq?kZVuk esa fyIr okgu vizkFkhZ U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsUl dEiuh ds ;gka chfer FkkA blfy, mi;qZDr leLr {kfriwfrZ dh vnk;xh dk nkf;Ro vizkFkhZ la0 4 dk gSA " In the Claim Petition No. 92/92 respondent No. 4 is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It seems that while holding the New India Assurance Co. liable to pay the amount, the learned Member of the Tribunal inadvertantly wrote non petitioner no. 4 in place of non petitioner no. 2. Ltd. It seems that while holding the New India Assurance Co. liable to pay the amount, the learned Member of the Tribunal inadvertantly wrote non petitioner no. 4 in place of non petitioner no. 2. A reading of last paragraph clearly goes to show that the Tribunal came to a conclusion that since the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. and therefore, it was liable to make the payment. However, in the next line instead of mention of non petitioner no. 2 by slip there is the name of non-petitioner no. 4. 6. It may be pointed out here that in the discussion of evidence, the Tribunal has nowhere held that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for this accident. While discussing Issue no. 1 which was common to all the claim cases, it has been clearly concluded that this accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving by Rane Khan who was the Driver of L.P. Truck 177 and there was no mistake on the part of Nakhat Singh who was the driver of the Nisan Truck. I have also gone through the evidence produced in the case. It is not at all established that there was any fault on the part of the Driver of Nisan Truck. That being so, it cannot be found that it was a case of contributory negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles. There is no merit in this contention that both the insurance companies should be made liable to make the payment. 7. It has been the consistent view of this Court that the Insurance Co. cannot maintain appeal on the quantum. This Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Shiv Raj (supra) held that the insurer in the appeal cannot question the finding of the Tribunal as to the manner of accident or its estimate of compensation or the liability of the insured. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Lad Kanwar (supra) has clearly laid down that the insurer cannot take pleas beyond the scope of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of British India General Insurance Co. (supra) and as such it is not open to the Insurance Co. to question the quantum of compensation. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of British India General Insurance Co. (supra) and as such it is not open to the Insurance Co. to question the quantum of compensation. It is, thus, manifest that the insurer cannot question the correctness of the award in appeal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned except where the award is against the statutory provisions of the Act. That being so, the appeal Nos. 289, 295, 290 & 288 of 1995 filed against the award in Claim Petitions No. 35/92, 33/92, 52/92,51/92 are not maintainable. I have myself gone through the evidence produced in the cases. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Tribunal has erred in computing the amount of compensation. 8. As regards the Appeal No. 292/95 arising out of Claim Case No. 92/92 of Adam Khan who was admittedly Khalasi of the truck, it may be stated that the limit of the compensation award able under the Workman's Compensation Act is not applicable when the claimant seeks redress in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the case of Suresh Chand (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the High Court which had accepted the contention that the claimant would have accrued Rs. 85,000/- only by way of compensation if he had moved the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation and he was entitled to this amount only as compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Judgment of the Tribunal which had awarded amount much more than award able under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the instant case also the situation is not very different. Adam Khan was the Khalasi in LP Truck. He suffered injuries while travelling in that truck. Adam Khan had an option to approach the Workmen Commissioner or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He was certainly entitled to the just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The limit of compensation award able under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Kalyan Chand who is the owner of the Nisan Truck had filed Claim Case No. 53/92. The learned Tribunal has awarded full amount of Rs. 1,05,550 against the Insurance Co. The limit of compensation award able under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Kalyan Chand who is the owner of the Nisan Truck had filed Claim Case No. 53/92. The learned Tribunal has awarded full amount of Rs. 1,05,550 against the Insurance Co. Section 147(2) of the Act lays down that a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1) shall cover any liability in respect of any accident up to the limit of Rs. 6,000/- in respect of damage to any property of a third party. Thus, where there is damage to a property of a third party, the Insurance Co. can be held liable for compensation not more than Rs. 6,000/- save where there is a different condition in the policy. A reading of the policy reveals that the liability of the Insurance Co. for the damage to the property of a third party was limited to Rs. 6,000/-. It has not been pointed out that excess premium was paid by the insured and the Insurance Co. had agreed to be liable for unlimited amount. It is, thus, obvious that the Award passed against the Insurance Co. in this case is against the statutory provisions. The Insurance Co. could not be asked to pay more than Rs. 6,000/-. This appeal deserves to be accepted. 10. Similarly, in the claim cases No. 37/92 & 38/92, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 14,000/- as damages to the property. The liability of the Insurance Company as regards the damage to the property of third party was limited to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- and therefore, the appellant is not liable for more than Rs. 6,000/- for the damage to the property to Usman and Smt. Mishra. In other respects there is no substance in Appeals Nos. 286/95 & 291 /95. 11. No other point was pressed before me. 12. The result, therefore, is that Appeals No. 295/95, 290/95, 289/95, 288/95 & 292/95 are devoid of merit and they are dismissed. 13. Appeal No. 291/95 is partly allowed and upholding the award it is modified to this extent that the New India Assurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 2,98,000/- plus interest only. The amount which has already been paid shall be adjusted. 14. 13. Appeal No. 291/95 is partly allowed and upholding the award it is modified to this extent that the New India Assurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 2,98,000/- plus interest only. The amount which has already been paid shall be adjusted. 14. Appeal No. 286/95 is also partly allowed and maintaining the Award it is modified to this extent that the Insurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 10,302 only with interest thereon. 15. Appeal No. 287/95 is also partly allowed and maintaining that Award it is modified to this extent that the Insurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 6,000/- only and interest thereon.Appeal partly allowed. *******