Holding

When no higher premium is paid, the insurer’s liability is limited to the statutory ceiling under Section 95(2) and a comprehensive policy does not make the liability unlimited.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against a Delhi High Court order that held the insurer liable for the full compensation awarded to third‑party claimants in a motor accident. The issue was whether an insurer that has not taken on higher liability by receiving a higher premium is bound only by the statutory limit under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or must pay the entire award. The Court examined earlier decisions (Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood) and held that a comprehensive policy does not automatically expand liability beyond the statutory ceiling unless a specific clause and additional premium are provided. The policy in this case limited liability to Rs 50,000 and no extra premium was paid, so the insurer’s liability was confined to that amount. Consequently, the High Court’s view of unlimited liability was set aside and the appeals were allowed, confirming the Rs 50,000 limit while leaving the vehicle owner and driver liable for the balance.

Issues considered

Whether an insurer that has not accepted a higher premium is liable only up to the statutory limit under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for third‑party compensation.
Whether a comprehensive insurance policy automatically extends liability beyond the statutory limit.
Whether there is a conflict between the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments in Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood on this point.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 94, s. 95(2)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 95insurance liabilitycomprehensive policystatutory limitthird‑party compensationinsurance contractpremium

Judgment

A NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
C.M. JAY A AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 2002

B [S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,
UMESH C. BANERJEE, S.N. VARIAVA AND
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, .1939:
c
Section 95(2)-Comprehensive Insurance Policy-Compensation to third
party-Liability ofInsurance Company-When Insurance Company not taking
any higher liability by accepting a higher premium it would be liable to the
extent limited under Section 95(2), and not the entire amount.
D The question involved in these appeals is whether an Insurance
Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium,
would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 or the entire amount in case of payment to a third party.

E Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1. When Insurance Company is not taking any higher
liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to
a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under
Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and would not be liable to
F pay the entire amount. (306-H(

1.2. A statut.ory liability cannot be more than what is required under
the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 prohibiting the parties from contracting to create
unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the
G insurer is bound by the terms of the contract, as specified in the policy in
regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence
of such a term of clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance,
a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or
higher. If it is so done, it amounts to re-writing the statute or the contract
H of insurance which is not permissible. (305-H; 306-A-BI
298
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. C.M. JAY A 299

A
) J.3. There is no conflict on the question raised in the order of
reference between the decisions of two Benches of three Judges in Shanti
Bai and Amrit Lal Sood's Cases. In Amrit Lal Sood's case, the decision in
Shanti Bai is not noticed. However, both these decisions refer to the case
of Jugal Kishore* and no contrary view is expressed. In the premise, the
view expressed in the case of Shanti Bai is correct. [306-C-D)
B
*New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, [1995) 2 SCC 539,
affirmed.

Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, [1998) 3 SCC 744,
explained.
c
National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and Ors.,
[1998) 1 sec 626, referred to.

1.4. High Court committed an error in taking the contrary view that
the liability of the appellant was unlimited merely on the ground ttiat the D
vehicle in question was covered by a comprehensive policy. In Shanti Bai's*
case, Court has expressed the opinion that a comprehensive policy issued
on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not automatically
result in covering the liability with regard to third party risk for an
amount higher than the statutory limit. This position is accepted in Amrit
Lal Sood's* case as well though no reference is made to this case. E
[307-H; 308-BJ

*New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Shanti Bai, [1995) 2 SCC 539,
affirmed.

Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, [ 1998) 3 SCC 744, F
explained.

1.5. In the instant case it is clear from the admitted copy of the
Insurance Policy produced before the Court that the liability of the
appellant is limited to Rs. 50,000 in regard to the claim in question. No G
additional or higher premium was paid to cover unlimited or higher
liability than the statutory liability fixed as found in the term of the policy.
Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the liability of the appellant is
limited to Rs. 50,000. (307-E-Gf

New India Assurance Co. v. CM. Jaya and Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 47; H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A Pushpabai l'urshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P)
Ltd. and Anr., 119771 2 SCC 745; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lal
& Ors., 11988] Supp. SCC 506 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal <
& Ors., 1199911 SCC 552, referred to.

,_, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4566-
B 4567 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.95 of the Delhi High Court
in F.A.O. No. 268/81 and C.M. No. 854 of 1983.

Uday Gupta, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms, Arpita Mahajan, Ms. Praneeta Sharma
C and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
K.C. Dua, Tarun Dua, Ms. Sonia Sharma, S.C. Sharda and Lalit Kumar
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. These appeals are placed before us pursuant
to the order of reference made in New India Assurance Co. v. CM. Jaya and
Ors., (1999] 2 SCC 47, which reads: -

"The question involved in these appeals is whether in a case of
E insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher
premium, in case of payment of compensation to a third party, the
insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) or
the insurer would be liable to pay the entire amount and he may
ultimately recover from the insured. On this question, there appears
to be some apparent conflict in the two three-Judge Bench decisions
F
of this Court - (I) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai:
[1995] 2 SCC 539 and 2 Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar,
[J 998] 3 sec 744.

2. In the latter decision, unfortunately the decision in New India
Assurance case (supra) has not been noticed though reference has
G
been made to the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, [1988] I SCC 626, which was relied upon in
the earlier three-Judge Bench judgment. In view of the apparent
conflict in these two three-Judge Bench decisions, we think it
appropriate that the records of this case may be placed before my
H Lord, the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench for
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. v. C.M. JAVA [PATIL, J.] 301

A
) resolving the conflict. We accordingly so direct. The record may now
be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India."

2. In the first place, we think it appropriate to have a closer look at the
three decisions referred to in the above order.

3. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and Ors., [1995] 2 B
SCC 539, the facts were that on 3. 1.1989 the deceased Laxman Singh, who
was sitting on the top of the bus with the permission of the bu~ driver,
respondent No. 5, who hit a tree by his rash and negligent driving. The legal
heirs of Laxman Singh filed claim for coinpensation amounting to Rs. 7,8 I ,000
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order,
awarded compensation of Rs. I, I 0,000 together with interest and directed the C
insurance company (the appellant before this Court) and the respondent Nos.
4 and 5, being the owner and driver of the bus, to pay the same. The appeal
filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. The short question
that came up for consideration before this Court was whether the appellant
was liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, I 0,000 together with D
interest thereon in the light of the contention of the appellant that its liability
was limited to Rs. 15,000.

The owner of the bus had taken a comprehensive insurance policy on
the estimated value of the vehicle at Rs. 2,50,000. In the schedule of premium
an additional payment of Rs. 600 in respect of 50 passengers was shown. The E
appellant-company contended that this additional payment @ Rs. 12 per
passenger was to cover its limited liability of 50 passengers under Section 95
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').

Following the case of National Insurance Co. ltd., New Delhi v. Jugal
Kishore and Ors., [ 1988] 1 sec 626 and referring to the provisions of F
Section 95 of the Act, the Court stated thus: -

"These provisions were interpreted by this Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. ltd. v. Jugal Kishore. This Court observed that even
though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at
least under an "act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of G
a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got
comprehensively insured, a higher premium is payable depending on
the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner
to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered
up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the
rules and regulations framed in this behalf. It has further observed as H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A under: -
"Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher <
premium on this score, however, does not mean that the limit of
the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or
higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of
B Section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has
to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company
and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability
undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf."

ln the present case, therefore, a comprehensive policy which has been
C issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle of Rs. 2,50,000
does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to
third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit."
(emphasis supplied)

The Court went on to say that "The mere fact that the insurance policy is
D comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. As pointed
out by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Juga/ Kishore,
comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to clai;n reimbursement of the
entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the
vehicle. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party
E risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose,
a specific agreement is necessary which is absent in the present case." In this
view this Court allowed the appeal and held that the liability of the appellant
was limited to Rs. 15,000.

4. The facts of the case in Amrit Lal Sood and Anr. v. Kaushalya Devi
F Thapar and Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 744, were that on 25.8.1970, the Fiat car
owned by the second appellant collided with a goods carrier. The car was
being driven by the first appellant, a brother of the second appellant. The car
was insured with the fifth respondent. One Kishan Sarup Thapar, travelling
in the car, got injured and was hospitalized for some time. He made claim for
G Rs.1,25,000 as compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,800. as compensation. The claimant filed an
appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation. The insurer
(fifth respondent) filed app~al disputing its liability to satisfy the claim. In
claimant's appeal compensation was enhanced to Rs. 20,800. In the appeal
filed by the insurance company the learned Judge held that the claimant was
H a gratuitous passenger travelling in the car and, therefore, the insurance
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. v. C.M. JAYA [PATIL, J.] 303

) company was not liable. Two Letters Patent Appeals were filed - one by the A
legal representatives of the claimant and another by the driver of the vehicle.
The appeal filed by the driver was dismissed and in the appeal filed by the
legal representatives of the claimant compensation was increased to Rs. 56,000
by the Division Bench of the High Court. The driver and the owner of the
car filed appeals in this Court. The question that came up for decision before B
this Court was whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the claim for
compensation made by a person traveling gratuitously in the car. In deciding
this question the Court took the view that the liability of the insurer in the
case depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer
as evident from the policy. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
compels the owner of a motor vehicle to insure the vehicle in compliance C
with the requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 of the Act
provides that a policy of insurance must be one which insures the person
against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or
bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of third party caused
by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The section does
not however require a policy to cover the risk to passengers who are not D
carried for hire or reward. The statutory insurance does not cover injury
suffered by occupa;lts of the vehicle who are not carried for hire or reward
and the insurer cannot be held liable under the Act. But that does not prevent
an insurer from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider
than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby the risk to gratuitous E
passengers could also be covered. In such cases where the policy is not
merely a statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to
determine the liability of the insurer."

Tlie relevant clauses of the policy are reproduced in paragraph 6 of the
said judgment. Clause 1(a) under Section II relating to liability of third party F
reads:-

"1. The Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident
caused by or arising out of the use of the motor car against all sums
including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become
legally liable to pay in respect of G
(a) death of or bodily injury to any person but except so far as is
necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable where such death or
injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such
person by the insured." H
'·

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A Looking to this clause the Court in paragraph 8 has held: - (
"Thus under Section J/(l)(a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to
indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become
legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any
person". The expression "any person" would undoubtedly include an
B occupant of the car who is gratuitously traveling in the car. The
remaining part of clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising
out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.
In such cases the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary
to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Act. Insofar as gratuitous
passengers are concerned there is no limitation in the policy as such.
c Hence under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the
award passed in favour of the claimant. We are unable to agree with
the view expressed by the High Court in this case as the terms of the
policy are unambiguous."

D Distinguishing the judgment in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v.
Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd and Anr., [1977] 2 SCC 745, the
Court observed that the said judgment was based upon the relevant clause in
the insurance policy, which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the
statutory requirements under Section 95 of the Act and so that decision had
no application to the case as the terms of the policy stated in paragraph 6 of
E the judgment were wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle.
The Court also referred to the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) in which it is
held that though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at
least under "act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner to get a
comprehensive policy but it is open to the insurer to take a policy covering
F a higher risk.

5. Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the
liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but
it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and
get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of
G any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be
unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory
liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this
Court.

6. In Shanti Bai 's case (supra), a bench of three learned Judges of this
H Court, following the case of Jugal Kishore, has held that (i) a comprehensive
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. C.M. JAYA [PATIL, J.] 305

) policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the
vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to
A

third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit, (ii) that even
though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under
an "Act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it
comprehensively insured and (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to B
third party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability
in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurer's liability unlimited
or higher than the statutory liability.

7. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood
(supra), it is clear that the view taken by the Court is not different. In this C
decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore is referred to. It is held (i) that the
liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract between the
insured and the insurer contained in the policy; (ii) there is no prohibition for
an insured from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider
than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the gratuitous
passenger could also be covered; and (iii) in such cc;ses where the policy is D
not merely statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to
determine the liability of the insurer. Hence, the Court after noticing the
relevant clauses in the policy, on facts found that under Section 11-l(a) of the
policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums
which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or E
bodily injury to "any person". The expression "any person" would undoubtedly
include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously traveling in it. Further,
referring to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi (supra), it was observed
that the said decision was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance
policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the
statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Act. As such, that decision had F
no bearing on Amrit Lal Sood's case as the terms of the policy were wide
enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the
specific clause in the policy being wider, covering higher risk, made all the
difference in Amrit Lal Sood's case as to unlimited or higher liability. The
Court decided that case in the light of the specific clause contained in the G
policy. The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the
liability of the insurance company is limited to the statutory requirement, an
unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it. The liability could be
statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is
required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of
the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] I S.C.R.

A liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the
terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or
(
higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause
in the policy, pursuar.t to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability
cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts
B to re-writing the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible.

8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any conflict on
the question raised in the order of reference between the decisions of two
Benches of three learned Judges in Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood
aforementioned and, on the other hand, there is consistency on the point that
C in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a
higher premium, the liability of the insurance company is neither unlimited
nor higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section 95(2) of the Act.
In Amrit Lal Sood's case, the decision in Shanti Bai is not noticed. However,
both these decisions refer to the case of Jugal Kishore and no contrary view
is expressed.
D
9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lal & Ors., [1988] supp.
sec 506 looking to the insurance policy that the appellant had undertaken
to indemnify the insured to the extent of Rs. 50,000 only, it was held that the
High Court was in error in holding that the appellant was liable to pay the
entire amount of compensation which was more than Rs. 50,000 and that the
E liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 50,000.

I 0. In a recent judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathi/al &
Ors., [ 1999] I SCC 552, this Court, following the case of Jugal Kishore
aforementioned, held that in view of the fact that no extra premium was paid •
towards unlimited liability as could be seen from the policy produced, the
F liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 15,000. The Court set
aside the award of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court.

11. In the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the Bench of
three learned Judges in the case of Shanti Bai is correct and answer the
question set out in the order of reference in the beginning as under:-
G
In the case of insurance company not taking any higher liability by
accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party,
the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the
Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount.

H 12. In these appeals presently before us, the judgment and order of
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. v. C.M. JAY A [PATIL, J.] 307
Delhi High Court are under challenge. The deceased was riding the pillion A
, seat of a two-wheeler when it met with a truck insured by the appellant. On
the claimants approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it awarded
a sum of Rs. 1,03,360 as compensation and held that the liability of the
appellant" was limited to Rs. 50,000 and the balance amount was recoverable
from the driver and owner of the truck jointly and severally. The truck owner
(the respondent no. 4) preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court B
held that the liability of the appellant was unlimited as the vehicle was
comprehensively insured. The High Court also allowed cross-objections
preferred by the claimants/Respondents Nos. I to 3 solely against the appellant
• under Order XU Rule 22 CPC for the full pecuniary liability to be placed
upon the insurer while enhancing the amount of compensation from c
Rs. 1,03,360 to Rs. 3,60,000 with interest@ 15% per annum from the date
of application. Hence, these two appeals are brought by the appellant,
aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court. The submissions
were made before us by the learned counsel for the parties in support of the
respective contentions citing the decisions aforementioned as to the extent of
liability of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to Respondents D
I to 3.
b
It is not in dispute from the admitted copy of the insurance policy
produced before the Court that the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs.
50,000 in regard to the claim in question. The relevant clause in the policy
relating to limits of liability reads:-
E

limits of Liability: Limit of the amount of the Company's liability
· under Section 11-l(i) in respect of any one accident. - Rs. 50,000
Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under Section JI-
I(ii) in respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of one
F
event - Rs. 50,000
It is also not the case that any additional or higher premium was paid to cover
unlimited or higher liability than the statutory liability fixed as found in the
tenn of the policy extracted above. In the light of the law stated above, it
necessarily follows that the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs. 50,000,
G
;. as was rightly held by the Tribunal. The High Court committed an error in
taking the contrary view that the liability of the appellant was unlimited
merely on the ground that the insured had taken a comprehensive policy. In
Shanti Bai 's case, this Court has clearly expressed the opinion that a
comprehensive policy issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle
does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third H
~
..

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 1 S.C.R.

A party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit in the absence of
specific agreement and payment of separate premium to cover third party risk
for an amount higher than the statutory limit. This position is accepted in
Amrit Lal Sood's case as well though no reference is made to this case. As
already stated above, in Amrit Lal Sood 's case, the Court found an express
B term in the policy for covering wider risk and to meet the higher liability
unlike in the case of Shanti Bai. Therefore, the High Court was not right in
holding that the liability of the appellant insurance-company was unlimited
merely on the ground that the vehicle in question, i.e., the truck, was covered
by a comprehensive insurance policy.

C 13. In the circumstances, we hold that the liability of the appellant
insurance-company is limited to Rs. 50,000, as held by the Tribunal. In the
view we have taken, it is unnecessary to go into the question relating io either
maintainability of cross-objections before the High Court against the appellant
alone or as to the enhancement of compensation when the owner and driver
have not filed appeal against the impugned judgment.
D
14. The appeals are, therefore, allowed to the extent of limiting the
liability of the appellant insurance-company to Rs. 50,000, making it clear
that it does not affect in any manner the liability of the respondents 4 and 5
(the truck owner and the driver) to pay the full amount of the award. The
E judgment and order of the High Court under challenge in these appeals shall
stand modified accordingly. Parties to bear their respective costs.

N.J. Appeals allowed.