C. ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the judgment and award dated 19. 10. 1993 in m. V. C. No. 547 of 1989 passed by the district Judge and Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Karwar, UK (henceforth in brief as 'the M. A. C. T. ' ). In passing the same, the M. A. C. T. had awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000 as against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000 payable by the respondent No. 2, owner. The appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company on the ground that its liability would have been restricted to Rs. 50,000 in terms of the insurance policy. ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. Yoganarasimha. The respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. V. P. Kulkarni. The respondent no. 2 having been served with notice had remained absent. The respondent No. 3, claimant is represented by Mr. B. S. Hadimani. I have also perused the case records. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. Yoganarasimha, while taking me through the facts of the case and impugned judgment and award under challenge argued that the M. A. C. T. would not have fastened the liability beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000. In this regard, he had taken me through the provision of law in section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act and further the limit of liability as set out in Exh. R1, insurance policy. It is, therefore, his submission that the M. A. C. T. had faltered in fastening the liability beyond the statutory limit in passing the impugned judgment and award and, therefore, he prayed that the same be modified to restrict the liability at Rs. 50,000. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, driver, Mr. V. P. Kulkarni argued that the appellant insurance company in filing the objection statement before the m. A. C. T. had stated that the limit of liability of the appellant insurance company was not to an extent of Rs. 3,00,000 as it had been claimed by the respondent No. 3, claimant. Therefore, according to Mr. Kulkarni, insurance policy, Exh. Rl, would not have come to the aid of the insurance company. 3,00,000 as it had been claimed by the respondent No. 3, claimant. Therefore, according to Mr. Kulkarni, insurance policy, Exh. Rl, would not have come to the aid of the insurance company. He had also drawn my attention to para 7 of the objection statement filed by the appellant insurance company before the M. A. CT. It is also his submission that the column meant to be filled with regard to the increased T. P. limits under section ii-l (i) unlimited and under section II-l (ii) in Schedule of premium in page 1 of insurance policy, Exh. R-l, is left blank and that being the position, according to him, it is not available for the insurance company to say that its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000. He had also cited before me a reported decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dulari Devi, 1995 ACJ 9 (Patna), wherein in a case where the insurance company had failed to produce either the original insurance policy or carbon copy thereof, the learned single Judge of that court held that adverse inference has to be drawn against the insurance company and that, therefore, the liability cannot be limited to the extent of minimum statutory liability of Rs. 15,000. He had also cited before me yet another decision reported in oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Jagadish Babu, 1986 ACJ 890 (Karnataka), wherein the Division Bench of this court held that when column in the insurance policy is left blank as to its liability, the insurance company is liable to pay full amount. Therefore, he prayed that there is no merit in the instant appeal filed by the insurance company and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Mr. Hadimani while supporting the impugned judgment and award passed by the M. A. C. T. submitted that it is too late for the insurance company to argue before this court in the instant appeal that the liability is restricted to Rs. 50,000. Such an argument advanced by him is on the ground that in filing the objection statement the appellant insurance company had contended that the liability was limited to rs. 1,50,000. ( 6 ) I have to point out at the outset that the insurance policy, Exh. 50,000. Such an argument advanced by him is on the ground that in filing the objection statement the appellant insurance company had contended that the liability was limited to rs. 1,50,000. ( 6 ) I have to point out at the outset that the insurance policy, Exh. R-l, was marked by consent of the parties before the m. A. C. T. In Exh. R-l as I see the column under head it is set out to say that for increased T. P. limit under section II-l (i) was unlimited, whereas under section II-l (ii) in Schedule of premium in page 1 of insurance policy, Exh. R-l, is left blank; however under the title 'limits of liability' in Exh. R-l, it had been clearly set out that limit of liability is limited to Rs. 50,000. I see the reference to the section as above is very well set out therein under the said title 'limits of liability'. 1 feel it proper to quote the said para and the same reads as hereunder:"limits of liability: Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section uu (1) (i) in respect of any one accident: such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Rs. 50,000. " ( 7 ) FROM the above condition imposed under the title 'limits of liability' in the insurance policy, Exh. R-l, very well marked by consent of the parties, it appears to me that it is not available either for the respondent No. 1 driver or for that matter the respondent No. 2 owner to canvass an argument to say that the appellant insurance company is liable to compensate the entire liability under the impugned judgment and award. When the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 had cited before me the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dulari Devi, 1995 ACJ 9 (Patna), I have taken note that the learned single Judge of the Patna High court had relied upon a reported decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC ). I have also gone through the said decision of the Supreme Court. Ltd. v. Dulari Devi, 1995 ACJ 9 (Patna), I have taken note that the learned single Judge of the Patna High court had relied upon a reported decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC ). I have also gone through the said decision of the Supreme Court. Having done that I have to observe here that the answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is found in para 7 of the said judgment. The facts in the instant case in hand and the facts in the reported decision are on similar lines. In para 7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as hereunder:"a perusal of the policy, therefore, indicates that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle falling under section II-1 (i) has been confined to 'such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939'. This liability, as is apparent from clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act, was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000 only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case falling under section II-l (i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (I. E. V.) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000. In this view of the matter the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had in the instant case undertaken an unlimited liability does not obviously have any substance. The liability under the policy in the instant case was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act, namely, Rs. 20,000. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability. " ( 8 ) FROM the above observation of the supreme Court, it is clear that statutory liability of the insurance company is as contemplated under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no matter that the insurance company had undertaken unlimited liability. " ( 8 ) FROM the above observation of the supreme Court, it is clear that statutory liability of the insurance company is as contemplated under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no matter that the insurance company had undertaken unlimited liability. Therefore, I am not left with any doubt that even if the appellant insurance company in the instant case in filing the objection statement conceded that the liability of the insurance company was to an extent of Rs. 1,50,000, the same cannot go beyond what was covered under insurance policy, Exh. R-l. Therefore, it is futile for the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to argue that the liability of the appellant insurance company is beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000. ( 9 ) AT this stage, I am also assisted by the Bar in citing an unreported decision of this court, in M. F. A. No. 1157 of 1984; decided on 17. 6. 1991, wherein the Division Bench of this court held that even when the columns are left blank in the insurance policy regarding the liability, it should not be taken that an insurer had undertaken unlimited liability. That decision by the Division Bench was also by relying upon the above said reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 10 ) IN the said facts and circumstances of the case, I find every merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company. Therefore, i am also of the view that the M. A. C. T. in passing the impugned judgment and award would not have fastened the liability on the appellant insurance company beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000, the limit of liability as set out under section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the result, I pass the following order: (I) The finding of the M. A. C. T. that the respondent No. 1 driver was rash and negligent in the manner of driving the tempo bearing No. CNE 3427 and he is who caused the accident resulting in injuries is upheld. (II) The further finding of the M. A. C. T. that the respondent No. 1 driver and the respondent No. 2 owner are liable to compensate the respondent No. 3 claimant is also upheld. (II) The further finding of the M. A. C. T. that the respondent No. 1 driver and the respondent No. 2 owner are liable to compensate the respondent No. 3 claimant is also upheld. (III) The further finding of M. A. C. T. that the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 3 claimant to an extent of Rs. 1,15,000 is set aside. However, the appellant insurance company is hereby held liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 owner to pay the respondent No. 3 claimant to an extent of rs. 50,000 only out of the total liability of rs. 1,15,000. (IV) The award of interest at 6 per cent by the M. A. C. T. in passing the impugned judgment and award is unaltered. (V) The appellant insurance company is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition whereas the respondent No. 1 driver and the respondent No. 2 owner are hereby directed to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 65,000 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition. The respective sides shall pay the respective sums within 8 weeks from today after giving deduction for any sum or sums deposited by them either before this court or before the M. A. C. T. below. The appeal, therefore, succeeds in part and accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .