(1.) THIS is an appeal by the owner of a passenger bus No. ASN 1681 questioning the legality of the apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nowgong, for short "the Tribunal" in M.A.C. Case No. 13 of 1974.
(2.) THE appellant, owner of the vehicle claims that at all relevant time the bus was insured with the New Great insurance Company of India Ltd., which on merger is styled as "The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company", Respondent No. 2. It is indubitable that the policy of insurance was a policy which covered against any liability up to Rs. 50,000 which might be incurred by the owner in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
(3.) THE owner of the bus being aggrieved by the under-scored portion of the award has preferred the appeal and questioned the validity of the apportionment. Mr. Jitendra Nath Sarma learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the terms of the policy of Insurance, the insurer was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 in respect of any such accident. In the absence of any special reasons the learned Tribunal acted illegally in adopting a method contrary to the terms of the policy of insurance, when the Insurer (respondent No. 2) was obliged to indemnify the entire liability of the owner. In view of the stipulation in the policy of Insurance, the insure was bound to indemnify any liability up to Rs. 50,000 in respect of the death of Munindra arising out of the use of the vehicle. The entire liability is on the Insurer (respondent No. 2). The second limb of argument is that in view of the provisions contained in Ss 95 (1) (b) (i) and 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred as "the Act", it is the liability of the Insurer to pay up the entire claim awarded. To bear up the argument the learned counsel relies on Rameswar Hazarika v. Promode Kanta Barua, Assam LR (1972) Assam and Naga 42 (48) (LB).