JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 18-5-1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 33,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum for personal injury caused in a motor accident. 2. Briefly, relevant facts are that on 18-1-1984 at about 4-5 p.m., claimant-respondent Abdul Wahid was travelling from Sabjimandi Kota in Tempo No. RSO 2881, which was owned by appellant Kalyan Singh and being drive by respondent No. 3 Bannu Singh. It was alleged that the said driver was driving the tempo rashly and negligently and as soon as it reached at Brij Talkies crossing in a fast speed, it was over-turned. Claimant Abdul Wahid who was sitting near the driver, fell and came down the overturned tempo, with the result that his left hand was crushed and he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Bhimrao Hospital, Kota. On his parcha Beyan a case was registered at police station Nayapura, Kota vide F.I.R. Ex. P.12 and after usual investigation, a challan was also filed against respondent-Bannu Singh. Abdul Wahid was subjected to multiple operations and his left arm was imputed at his shoulder joint. Abdul Wahid filed claim petition for compensation amounting to Rs. 1.91 lacs before the Tribunal. The appellant and the respondent-Driver Bannu Singh in their joint reply controverted the facts detailed in the claim petition. They asserted that claimant Abdul Wahid was not travelling in the said tempo, that when the said tempo reached near Brij Talkies, its brake guard broke down and as such its brake had failed, which upset its balance, with the result the tempo was overturned. It was asserted that the tempo was being driven with a slow speed and that none of the passengers sitting therein sustained any injury. It was further asserted that the claimant, who was coming on foot from the side of bus stand due to his own negligence came under the tempo and sustained injuries, for which he, himself, was responsible, and as such, they were not liable to pay any compensation. The National Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) admitted that the tempo was insured with it, that at the time of accident, the claimant was travelling as a passenger and asserted that as per terms of the insurance policy, its maximum liability was up to Rs. The National Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) admitted that the tempo was insured with it, that at the time of accident, the claimant was travelling as a passenger and asserted that as per terms of the insurance policy, its maximum liability was up to Rs. 15,000/- only. 3. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 6-5-1985 granted compensation of Rs. 7,500/- in favour of the claimant under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 under no fault liability and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount, which was paid to the claimant. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 29-5-1986 held that the Insurance Company was only liable to pay compensation to an extent of Rs. 15,000/- only and passed an interim Award for Rs. 15,000/- against the insurance company with the stipulation if in future any dispute arose for exceeding the liability of the insurance company an opportunity of hearing would be afforded to it. In pursuance thereof, the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) paid the entire amount of interim award to the claimant. 4. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. In support of the claim petition, Abdul Wahid (AW 1), Sabulal (AW 2), Ravindra Nath Bhargava (AW 3) were examined and in rebuttal, Bannu Singh (NAW 1) and Kalyan Singh (NAW 2) were examined. The Tribunal held that the claimant was travelling in the tempo and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver Bannu Singh, with the result that the claimant sustained simple and grievous injuries and amputation of his hand. The Tribunal also held that the accident did not occur due to mechanical failure of the brake, that the driver of the tempo had a valid license and that the insurance company was only liable to pay compensation for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Tribunal granted Rs. 33,000/- as compensation for the injuries, permanent disability and for the mental pain and agony and Rs. 3,000/- under the head medical expenses. The Tribunal, however, disallowed the compensation under the loss of income and for the expenses incurred by the claimant due to the postponement of marriage on account of the injuries sustained by him. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded in all compensation of Rs. 33,000/- out of which Rs. 15,000/-, had already been paid by the Insurance Company in pursuance of the Interim Award. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded in all compensation of Rs. 33,000/- out of which Rs. 15,000/-, had already been paid by the Insurance Company in pursuance of the Interim Award. Interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. The award was passed against the appellant and the respondents (non-claimants) jointly and severally Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellant has filed this appeal. Claimant respondent-Abdul Wahid has also filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. for the enhancement of compensation amount. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents at length and carefully perused the record of the case in extension. 6. Shri Subhash Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the tempo was comprehensively insured with the insurance company and as per the insurance policy Ex. A.2, the insurance company was liable to pay the entire compensation amount because its liability was not limited to Rs. 15,000/- only and that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the claim was covered under passenger risk, liability' only, Mr. Jain therefore, prayed that the Award be modified and the insurance company be made liable to pay the award amount. 7. On the other hand, Shri Atul Luhadia learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has asserted that the insurance policy Ex. A.2 of the tempo was comprehensive only in respect of the value of the tempo and that no extra premium was paid by the appellant for the unlimited liability to third party. 8. With regard to cross-objection, it has been strenuously urged by Shri Rule K. Sharma on behalf of the claimant respondent that the Tribunal has committed gross illegality in assessing a meagre amount of Rs. 33,000/- for physical pain, mental suffering and the permanent disability caused to the claimant. Similarly, compensation of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of medical expenses is very low and the same is not reasonable and proper. The Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding compensation to the claimant for the loss suffered by him due to the postponement of the marriage of his daughter because advance money given to him to the caterer, band master and for arranging a mare were forfeited. He has therefore, strongly urged that the compensation amount be reasonably enhanced. 9. He has therefore, strongly urged that the compensation amount be reasonably enhanced. 9. Shri Subhash Jain has maintained that the quantum of award does not warrant any enhancement. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. A careful perusal of the insurance policy Ex. A.2 indicates that it is a Commercial Vehicle (Comprehensive) Policy subject to endorsements Nos. 13, 16, 21, 26 and 37 incorporated therein. There is a specific clause pertaining to liability to the third party, which states that the subject to the limits of liability, the insurance company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants cost and the 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 load and/or unloading) motor vehicle and (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. A premium for 11 passengers @ Rs. 12/- per passenger amounting to Rs. 132/- only was paid and no additional premium was paid for covering comprehensive liability of the insurance company in respect of the death or bodily injury sustained by the third party. However, the limit of the amount of the companys liability for the value of the vehicle including accessories was to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 11. Section 95 deals with the insurance of the motor vehicle against third party risk. Under Section 95, in order to comply with Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which inter alia insures a person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2). Under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) the insurance policy must cover death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) the insurance policy must cover death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 95 provides as under: "(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in subsection (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) Where the vehicle is a 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." These were the provisions at the relevant time of the accident in question. 12. Interpreting these provisions, the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACC CJ 470 (SC) observed that even though, it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an Act only policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured, a higher premium than for an act only policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. It was further observed that comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to the third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than statutory liability fixed under sub-sec. (2) of Section 95 of the Act, and for this purpose, as specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the Insurance Company in this behalf. 13. In Shanti Bai case (supra) the bus met with the accident resulting into death of its passengers. The premium charged by the Insurance Company for passengers was Rs. 13. In Shanti Bai case (supra) the bus met with the accident resulting into death of its passengers. The premium charged by the Insurance Company for passengers was Rs. 600/- i.e. Rs. 12/- per passenger for 50 passengers covering their limited liability. The Tribunal mulcted the entire liability on the insurance company as the vehicle was comprehensively insured. The High Court also upheld the finding of the Tribunal. The Apex Court after perusing terms and conditions of the insurance policy and interpreting provisions of Section 95 of the old Act, held that in respect of the unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger was Rs. 15/- whereas premium @ Rs. 12/- per passenger was paid by the owner of the bus in respect of legal liability for accident and that in respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger was Rs. 15/- under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the old M.V. Act. The Apex Court reiterated that the insurance company was liable to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as per the statute and that the comprehensive insurance of the vehicle did not automatically cover the liability with regard to third party risk for an amount higher than statutory liability and that the comprehensive insurance only entitled the owner to claim reimbursement of loss or damages to the vehicle. 14. In the instant case, since no additional premium to cover liability higher than statutory liability under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the old M.V. Act has been paid to cover third party risk, there is no specific contract between the present appellant the respondent-insurance company to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. Therefore, in the absence of such a contract, the policy Ex. A.2 covers only statutory liability i.e. Rs. 15,000/- in respect of one passenger. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Subhash Jain on this count cannot be upheld and the same is hereby replied and the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay higher compensation amount than statutory liability. Consequently, this appeal fails.In re cross-objections and quantum of compensation 15. Claimant respondent-Abdul Wahid was working as U.D.C. in the Command Area Development Chambal, Kota. On the date of accident, his age was about 44 years. As per his salary certificate on Ex. 9 he was drawing salary of Rs. 1505/- per month. Medico legal injury report Ex. Consequently, this appeal fails.In re cross-objections and quantum of compensation 15. Claimant respondent-Abdul Wahid was working as U.D.C. in the Command Area Development Chambal, Kota. On the date of accident, his age was about 44 years. As per his salary certificate on Ex. 9 he was drawing salary of Rs. 1505/- per month. Medico legal injury report Ex. 15 reveals that he sustained lacerated wound on his left cheek, compound fracture on upper ⅓rd left arm with lacerated wound 1" deep x 14," another lacerated wound on his left elbow and punctured 3/4" x deep x 14" wound on the medial aspect of his left upper arm He was admitted in Maharaja Bhimrao Hospital, Kota. His X-Ray examination also confirmed a compound fracture. AW 1 Abdul Wahid deposed that he was hospitalised on 18-1-1984, and was medically operated on 19-1-1984 and that his left arm was imputed below left shoulder joint. He was again operated for second and third time. He remained as an indoor patient in MBM Hospital, Kota from 18-1-1984 to 29-2-1984. Thereafter he took treatment in the Indian Rural Health institute Vikram Chowk, Ladpura, Kota. He has proved prescriptions Exs. 1 to 3. He stated that despite operation and treatment, pain in his left hand persisted. Therefore, he consulted Dr. Kasliwal, Head of the Orthopaedics Department. SMS Hospital, Jaipur and Dr. P.K. Sethi. He has proved their prescriptions Exs. 4 and 5. On 28-5-1985 he went to the Artificial Limb Manufacturing Corporation of India, Kanpur for artificial limb. Wahid has also submitted medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Singh Senior Specialist and Head of the Department of Orthopaedics M.B.S. Hospital, Kota dated 27-2-1985, wherein it has been certified that due to amputation of his left arm below shoulder joint, he has been permanently disabled and that this disability is 80%. Wahid has deposed that he had gone to Jaipur and Kanpur along with one attendant and incurred an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on his medical treatment. He has further deposed that due to the amputation of his left hand, he has also been suffering from inferiority complex and that now he cannot drive a cycle and has to go to his office on an auto rickshaw and that he has also been deprived of the full enjoyment of his life. He has also filed his photograph. He has further deposed that due to the amputation of his left hand, he has also been suffering from inferiority complex and that now he cannot drive a cycle and has to go to his office on an auto rickshaw and that he has also been deprived of the full enjoyment of his life. He has also filed his photograph. No marshall and substantial question has been put to him in cross-examination regarding permanent disability. 16. In Jai Bhagwan v. Laxman Singh, TAC 1950-95 SC p. 25 the claimant aged 22 years suffered serious injuries in a road accident and his left leg had to be imputed above the knee. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for the injuries suffered by him. The Apex Court having regard to the age and all relevant facts and circumstances enhanced the compensation from Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. 17. In the instant case the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 33,000/- only for injuries, permanent disability and mental pain and agony which is clearly on the lower side. Having regard to the age of the injured Abdul Wahid, severity of injuries sustained by him and the consequential degree of the permanent disability and incapacitation, loss of amenities of life and all other relevant factors, I am of the considered opinion that he has been under compensated and that it will be just and proper to enhance compensation from a Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- under this head. 18. It is true that Abdul Wahid did not submit bills of medicines but admittedly he remained in hospital for a period of one month. He has also undergone operations thrice and he took treatment in the Indian Rural Health Centre, Kota and consulted renowned Orthopaedicians at Jaipur. He also went to Kanpur for installation of artificial limb. Therefore, compensation under the head medical expenses and treatment also needs to be enhanced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. 19. Abdul Wahid has stated that the marriages of his two daughters were to be solemnised on 21-1-1984 but due to the accident, their marriages had to be postponed and that the advances given by him to the caterer, band master, and for the arrangement of mare stood forfeited, but he has not submitted any documentary evidence. 6,000/-. 19. Abdul Wahid has stated that the marriages of his two daughters were to be solemnised on 21-1-1984 but due to the accident, their marriages had to be postponed and that the advances given by him to the caterer, band master, and for the arrangement of mare stood forfeited, but he has not submitted any documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal has rightly disallowed the claim for compensation on this count as the postponement of the marriage was not the direct cause of the act of the negligence of the driver respondent and for such a remote cause, no compensation can be awarded. 20. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, cross-objections tiled by the claimant respondent-Abdul Wahid are partly allowed and the impugned Award dated 18-5-1989 passed by the Tribunal is modified and the compensation amount for bodily pain, mental agony and permanent disability caused to the claimant is enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and compensation for the medical expenses and the treatment is raised from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- (Six thousand). The claimant respondent shall also be entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court @ 12% per annum from 21-3-1984 i.e. the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. Costs of this appeal and cross-objections are made easy.Appeal dismissed. *******