Judgment : Third respondent in the petition, United India Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in this appeal. 2. First petitioners husband and father of petitioners 2 to 4 viz. Thulasingam was on duty as conductor in a bus bearing registration No.TMN.2556 on 18.2.1987. On that day at about 1.45 p.m., the first respondent was driving that bus from Kancheepuram to Vellore in a rash and negligent manner and near Aarapakkam village, the bus fell down and in that accident, the deceased Thulasingam died. For the said Thulasingam, the petitioners have filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000. 3. The second respondent filed counter contending that the driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully and all of a sudden, a front tyre of the bus burst out and the deceased jumped from the bus and due to his hit in a stone, he died and so, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kancheepuram heard the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.85,000 with interest at 12%. 5. Aggrieved against that award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. The Tribunal, on analysis of evidence found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that aspect is not disputed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident had occurred on 13.2.1987. and under the provisions of the then existing Act, as per Sec.95(2)(b)(ii), the liability of the insurance company is restricted and the insurance company is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.15,000. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was the conductor in that bus and he is a third party so far, as the insurance policy is concerned and as such the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000 and the award passed for Rs.85,000 is not sustainable. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the insurance policy Ex.B-1 is a comprehensive insurance policy and the liability in respect of third party is concerned, it is unlimited as per Clause 2(i) of the conditions of third party insurance, and the liability of the insurance company so far as this Clause is concerned, cannot be restricted to Rs.50,000 as contended by the counsel for the appellant and the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though there is clause with regard to third party claim as unlimited as under Clause 2(i) of the insurance policy Ex.B-1, the insured has not paid premium for that liability and as per Sec.95(2)(b)(1) of the Act, the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000 and as there is no agreement between the insured and the insurance company, the insurance companys liability is limited liability and the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents does not hold good and the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the liability of the insurance company has to be restricted to Rs.50,000. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishnan Pal Singh (2000)2 A.C.C. 339, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha. 2000 A.C.J. 704 Relying upon these decisions, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that only as per the statute under Sec.95(2)(b)(i), the compensation has to be fixed and it must be restricted to Rs.50,000. 11. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishnan Pal Singh (2000)2 A.C.C. 339 the Apex Court held that the relevant provision at the time to be looked into is Sec.95(2)(b)(ii)(3) read with (4) and a plain reading of the said provisions will present no difficulty in holding that the insurers liability is limited to Rs.5,000 in respect of each passenger subject to the limit fixed in Sec.95(2)(b)(ii)(3). 12. In the decision cited supra, a passenger was the deceased and it was held that the insurance companys liability is limited to Rs.5,000 in respect of each passenger under the relevant provisions of the then act. 12. In the decision cited supra, a passenger was the deceased and it was held that the insurance companys liability is limited to Rs.5,000 in respect of each passenger under the relevant provisions of the then act. Sec.95(2)(b)(i) and (ii) reads thus: “(2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-sec.(1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limit, namely-- (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:” The Apex Court has clearly held in the decision cited supra that the insurers liability is limited to Rs.5000 in respect of each passenger as the policy taken by the insured is an Act policy under Sec.95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 13. This Court has considered the same question in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R.K.Geetha 2000 A.C.J. 704 and has held that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs.50,000 and in the absence of payment of any extra premium, the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000. Applying the principles laid down in the above said decisions, it has to be held that the provisions of Sec.95(2)(b)(i) has to be applied and the liability of the insurance company is to be restricted to Rs.50,000. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the case of comprehensive policy, there is unlimited liability and he relies upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma 1996 A.C.J. 809 wherein it has been held that when the copy of the policy file indicates unlimited liability to third party in case of death of a pedestrian when a bus dashed against him, the liability of the insurance company is not limited to Rs.50,000. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma 1996 A.C.J. 809 wherein it has been held that when the copy of the policy file indicates unlimited liability to third party in case of death of a pedestrian when a bus dashed against him, the liability of the insurance company is not limited to Rs.50,000. The learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Clause 2(1) of insurance policy Ex.B-1 and submitted that in the case of death or bodily injury to any person, it is unlimited liability and it is incorporated in the policy and the policy is a comprehensive policy and so, the insurance company is not fitted with the limited liability and the liability in the case of third party is an un-limited one since the deceased involved in this case is the conductor of the bus who is a third party. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the deceased involved in this case is a third party and so, the conditions regarding the liability to third party is applicable, but, she submitted that for this unlimited liability covered under Clause 2(1) of the policy, the insured did not pay any premium and as no premium has been paid for unlimited liability, the insurance company cannot be called upon to pay more and the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the extent of Rs.50,000. 16. On a perusal of the policy, it is seen that for Clause 2(1)(i) unlimited, no premium has been paid. For Clause 2(1)(ii), the policy was taken for a sum of Rs.3,00,000 and a premium of Rs.75 has been paid. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the sum of Rs.3,00,000 meant for Clause II(i)(ii) in the policy refers to both II(1)(i) and II(1)(ii) and it covers both the Sections and for both the Sections, a sum of Rs.75 is paid and so, there is unlimited liability on the part of the insurance company. 18. The counsel for the appellant refuted the contention of the respondents and submitted that no premium has been paid for Sec.11(1)(i) for unlimited liability and the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents does not hold good. 19. 18. The counsel for the appellant refuted the contention of the respondents and submitted that no premium has been paid for Sec.11(1)(i) for unlimited liability and the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents does not hold good. 19. On a perusal of the policy, it is clearly seen that Sec.11(1)(i) is unlimited and no premium has been paid in respect of that Section and in respect of Sec.99(i)(ii), it is made for Rs.3,00.000 and the premium has been paid. Simply because in the next line of Sec.11(1)(ii) it is mentioned as Rs.3,00,000, it does not mean that it covers both the Sections. Sec.11(1)(i) relates to death or bodily injury to person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Sec.11(1)(ii) relates to damage to property caused by the use of the motor vehicle. Each of them is separate and distinct one and separate premium ought to have been paid. The policy does not indicate that for both the Sections common premium has been paid. So, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that premium of Rs.75 paid under Ex.B-1 covers both the Sections. So, it is borne out that or Sec.11(1)(i) no premium has been paid and the respondents cannot take shelter for unlimited liability under Sec.11(1)(i) in respect of the liability to third parties. In the decision cited by the counsel for the respondents reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma 1996 A.C.J. 809 the Orissa High Court has observed that, “Upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the material evidence on record and on consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties before this Court, it is found that the insurance policy is filed in this case indicates. inter alia, that the same is a comprehensive one and so, far as the third party pedestrian is concerned, it is unlimited and the premium has been paid. The points raised by the insurance company have no merit. There is specific mention of unlimited liability so far as third party is concerned and the provisions of Sec.95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is available to a pedestrian. The points raised by the insurance company have no merit. There is specific mention of unlimited liability so far as third party is concerned and the provisions of Sec.95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is available to a pedestrian. There is observation that in all cases where the insurer takes a defence that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy to help the Court in doing justice in the case. Because of an incomplete copy of the policy being placed on record, it can be held that the liability of the insurance company was not limited to what has been provided under the statute. The Court can draw an adverse inference against the insurer for not filing the complete policy and hold that in case a complete policy had been filed the same should have shown that the insurer was liable beyond the statutory liability. In the present case, the insurance policy indicates under both the heads unlimited liability so far as the third party is concerned. On further scrutiny of the insurance policy, this Court is of the view that the insurance company cannot take exception about unlimited liability and the argument advanced on behalf of the insurance company is not appreciated.” So it is evident from this decision that so far as the third party pedestrian is concerned, it is unlimited and premium has been paid. In the case on hand, no premium has been paid for unlimited liability so far as third party is concerned. So, the respondents are not entitled to contend that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited in the absence of payment of premium to that effect. 20. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 A.C.J. 270 held that the insurance company is liable to pay to the extent of it liability which is to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.95 of the Act. 20. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 A.C.J. 270 held that the insurance company is liable to pay to the extent of it liability which is to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.95 of the Act. The following observation of their Lordships is very relevant: “In the instant case, the appellant is not seeking to avoid its liability but wants a determination of the extent of its liability which is to be determined, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, in accordance with the statutory provision contained in this behalf in Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.95 of the Act. In the instant case since as seen above the appellant did not undertake in the policy any liability in excess of the statutory liability the award against it could be only in accordance with the said statutory liability.” 21. In Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poompavai 1991 A.C.J. 220 (Mad.) a Division Bench of this Court, after considering Sec.95(2)(a) of the Act as well as comprehensive policy, legal liability and statutory minimum liability came to the conclusion that “thus on due consideration of the terms of the policy and the relevant provisions of the Act, no liability in excess of Rs.50,000 in each one of these cases could be fastened upon the appellant insurance company. 22. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.R.Subramanian United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.R.Subramanian United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.R.Subramanian 1996 A.C.J. 1260 (Mad.) another Division Bench of this Court once again while considering Sec.95(2)(b) of the Act as well as earlier decisions on this point, expressed that the liability of the insurance company cannot be fastened more than the amount mentioned in the statute. 23. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai 1995 A.C.J. 470 three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to Sec.95 of the Act has observed thus: “These were the provisions at the relevant time. These provisions were interpreted by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 A.C.J. 270 (S.C.). In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai 1995 A.C.J. 470 three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to Sec.95 of the Act has observed thus: “These were the provisions at the relevant time. These provisions were interpreted by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 A.C.J. 270 (S.C.). This Court 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 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 upto the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. It has further observed as under: Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, does not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.95 of the Act. For this purpose a 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 under taken by the insurance company in this behalf. In the present case, therefore, a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle of Rs.2,50,000 does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit.” 24. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal 1999 A.C.J. 657 held that, “mere fact that column against unlimited liability was not filled will not automatically lead to the inference that the liability was unlimited in the absence of any special premium paid towards that claim. 25. From the decisions cited supra, it is crystal clear that in the absence of payment of additional premium, the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent mentioned in the Act. 25. From the decisions cited supra, it is crystal clear that in the absence of payment of additional premium, the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent mentioned in the Act. No extra premium has been paid for covering the unlimited liability under Sec.11(1(i) of the policy. Hence, I am of the view that in the absence of such extra premium, the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000 as per the statute. Hence, I hold that the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents that Ex.B-1 is a comprehensive policy and so, the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not hold good. After going through the insurance policy and various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. I am quite unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the respondents. The liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000 as per the statute. Accordingly, I hold that the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified and it is modified and the liability of the Insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos.2590 and 2591 and C.M.P. Nos.13220 and 13221 of 1992 are closed.