(1.) THIS order of ours will dispose of LPA Nos. 294 and 295 of 1984, as a common question of law is involved in both the appeals.
(2.) IT is not necessary to state the facts, as there can be no gainsaying that the appeal is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Shri Ajit Singh v. Sham Lal, [1984] PLR 314 ; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 946. However, the said judgment is being distinguished by Mr. Bhagirath Dass Seth, learned senior counsel, by contending that a specific plea had been raised that the liability of the insurance company did not extend to the entire amount awarded, but was limited to Rs. 50,000. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel. A similar contention was raised before the learned single judge (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Devi [1985] 58 Comp Cas 241), which was repelled thus (at page 242):
(3.) MR. Bhagirath Dass Seth has not been able to persuade us to take a contrary view other than the one arrived at by the learned single judge.