B.D. Agrawal, J.
1. These connected appeals are directed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IVth Additional District Judge), Farrukhabad.
2. The accident took place on October 20, 1972, around 9 p.m. Ram Babu Misra was asleep on his chabutra facing the house. Truck No. UPV 1833 belonging to Khushi Ram Rameshwar Dayal, it is alleged,, dashed against the claimant whereby he received grievous injury. This led ultimately to the amputation of his left leg. The claimant was aged about 16 years at the relevant time. Loss to property was also caused as a direct result of the accident. The Tribunal has, upon consideration of the evidence, reached the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Miraj Mohammad, the driver of the truck, and that the liability of the owner of the truck and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., with which the truck was insured, has been assessed at Rs. 25,000 so far as the injury to the person is concerned. In regard to the loss caused to the property, the amount awarded is Rs. 2,200 only. Aggrieved against the award, these appeals have been filed by the owner of the truck and also the insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the finding recorded with respect to the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of Miraj Mohammad, the truck driver. It seems that a detailed probe into the evidenceleading to the finding on the point by the Tribunal is not called for in these appeals for the obvious reason that in any event, the insurance company is liable for the amount assessed towards injury caused to the person and it is not open to the insurance company to assail the finding either in regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver or even with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded in that behalf. The case pertains to only one accident and the amount awarded of Rs. 25,000 for personal injury is within the statutory limit as contained in Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act as then in force. The entire amount awarded is, therefore, recoverable from the insurance company, which is the appellant No. 1 in both these appeals.
4. In so far as the amount of compensation awarded in regard to the loss to property is concerned, learned counsel refers to Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which says that irrespective of the class of the vehicle, there shall be a limit of rupees two thousand in respect of damage to any property of a third party. This was the provision introduced by the amendment through Central Act, No. 55 of 1969. In view thereof, the Tribunal could not have awarded Rs. 2,200 in this behalf instead of Rs. 2,000 only.
5. In consequence, First Appeal From Order No. 131 of 1978 fails and is dismissed accordingly. First Appeal From Order No. 107 of 1978 is allowed in part only to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded shall stand reduced to rupees two thousand only. Costs of these appeals shall be borne by the parties.