https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199683 Comprehensive motor insurance and payment of a higher premium for vehicle cover do not, by themselves, enlarge third-party bodily injury liability beyond the statutory limit under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the absence of a specific contractual undertaking and a separate premium for enhanced third-party risk, the policy remains confined to the statutory minimum. Section 96(6) does not prevent the insurer from contending that its liability is limited to that extent, because such a contention concerns the scope of liability rather than an attempt to avoid it. The insurer's liability was therefore restricted to the statutory amount. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:00:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199683 Comprehensive motor insurance and payment of a higher premium for vehicle cover do not, by themselves, enlarge third-party bodily injury liability beyond the statutory limit under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the absence of a specific contractual undertaking and a separate premium for enhanced third-party risk, the policy remains confined to the statutory minimum. Section 96(6) does not prevent the insurer from contending that its liability is limited to that extent, because such a contention concerns the scope of liability rather than an attempt to avoid it. The insurer's liability was therefore restricted to the statutory amount. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199683