[2025:RJ-JP:20361] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1846/2011 Anupam Goyal, S/o Jugal Kishore Goyal, R/o Near Old Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Prahlad Nagar, S/o Ram Chandra Nagar, R/o Gurjeni, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj). ----Claimant/Respondent 2. Mohan Lal, S/o Biram Lal, R/o Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi, Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj). 3. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Branch at Shahid Nirbhay Singh Circle, Jhalawar (Raj). ----Non-claimant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amarnath Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/05/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jhalawar, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant was partly allowed. 2. The limited controversy involved in the present case is that while deciding issue No.4, learned Court below awarded damage in respect of tractor bearing No. RJ-17-R-4871 to the tune of Rs.32,872/- but in view of provision of Section 147(2)(b), the [2025:RJ-JP:20361] (2 of 3) [CMA-1846/2011] Insurance Company is held liable to pay only Rs.6,000/- in terms of limited liability policy. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is perverse because the claimants have suffered a loss of Rs.32,872/-, therefore, the complete amount on account of damage to the tractor ought to have been awarded. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that in view of the limited liability policy, the learned Court below has rightly awarded the amount of Rs.6,000/- as per the Section 147(2)(b) of MV Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respective parties that the policy in question was a limited liability policy. That in view of the limited liability policy the case is governed by the provision of Section 147 of MV Act. Thus, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 147(2)(b):- "Section 147- Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- 1. ------- 2. Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub- section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:" [2025:RJ-JP:20361] (3 of 3) [CMA-1846/2011] 7. A bare perusal of the said provision reveals that in the cases of limited liability policies, the Insurance Company is only liable to pay Rs.6,000/- for damage to any property. 8. The aforesaid view is also supported by the judgment passed by Kerala High Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. Raveendran Nair & Ors. reported in 2004 (III) ACC 193 (DB). 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no arbitrariness and perversity in the impugned order qua fixing the liability of the Insurance Company for the property damage only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -142