PATEL ISHVARLAL MOHANLAL Vs. PATEL DIWALIBEN JETHALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri N.S. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle; none for the respondents though served; Insurance Company, probably is represented by Shri Uday R. Bhatt but he is also absent.

(2.) Shri N.S. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant-owner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the effect and import of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and erred in observing that the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs.50000/- only and rest of the amount of Rs.60000/- is to be suffered by the owner. He submits that Section 95[1] and Section 95[2] are in different applications. Referring to Section 95[2][c], he submits that Clause-[c] is altogether different and would have a different area of application. He submits that Clause-[a] refers to the goods vehicle while Clause-[b] refers to the vehicles wherein passengers are carried and therefore, in such cases, liability of the Insurance Company could be limited.

(3.) Perusal of Section 95[2][a] would clearly prove that subject to the proviso to sub-section [1], a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits:-