JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this Miscellaneous Appeal presented Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. raises question as to the scope of the provision of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act, in the award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Damoh in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 making the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 37,500/- with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation and further making the appellant primarily liable to pay the whole amount. ( 2. ) BEFORE dealing with the point in issue it is necessary to elucidate a few facts of the case as to how the provisions referred to above in the Act have been challenged. ( 3. ) ONE Asharam, father of respondent No. l/claimant Kishori, met with an accident on 12-5-1983 and succumbed to death. He on the alleged fateful day boarded the overcrowded bus after purchasing ticket, along with his two associates Brij Bihari (P. W. 2) and Mulua (P. W. 4) at village Hinota at about 10-30 A. M. for coming back to his village Richhai. The bus belonged to the respondent No. 2 and at the material time was being driven by the respondent No. 3. ( 4. ) THIS fact is not disputed that the said bus was overloaded and no seats were vacant with the result Asharam along with other passengers, was standing near the back door of the said bus. The door was kept open. When the bus proceeded from Hinota towards Panna, it was being driven rashly and negligently and was also in excessive speed because of unhealthy display between the bus belonging to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the bus in question. Due to excessive speed and constant jerks Asharam received push from his front side and he fell down from the open gate of the said bus. On passengers shouting for stopping the bus, the bus could not be stopped immediately, but it was got stopped after covering a distance of about half or one furlong. Asharam was then hospitalised in Government hospital, Hatta and from there he was shifted to District Hospital, Damoh where he died. On passengers shouting for stopping the bus, the bus could not be stopped immediately, but it was got stopped after covering a distance of about half or one furlong. Asharam was then hospitalised in Government hospital, Hatta and from there he was shifted to District Hospital, Damoh where he died. On these facts, the respondent No. 3 Gafoor was prosecuted Under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. ( 5. ) THE respondent No. 1 Kishori, son of victim Asharam, presented the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, Damoh. ( 6. ) THE record of the case reveals that the appellant, Insurance Company, did not contest the claim and it did not even care to file written statement before the Tribunal. ( 7. ) SHRI R. P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently put forth his contention that under the provisions of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act the liability of the Insurance Company could not exceed beyond Rs. 15,000/- in respect of any one accident for an individual passenger and thus by making the Insurance Company liable along with the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally for the whole amount awarded, is contrary to the aforesaid provisions. ( 8. ) SECTION 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act reads as under : " (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1) a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely : (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger; (c) xxx xxx xxx etc. " A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the same has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the insurer who is at liberty to raise any one of the objections permissible under this provision and avoid his liability where the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been made payable by the insurer, which exceeds the maximum prescribed limit Under Section 95 of the Act. ( 9. ) IN this context the observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. ( 9. ) IN this context the observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1971 ACJ 206 aptly apply to the instant case, wherein it has been observed that "the limit of insurance prescribed Under Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be enhanced by any contract to the contrary. " ( 10. ) THUS, ordinarily the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the extent of the statutory provision of Section 95 of the Act, but where the Insurance Company enters into a contract with the onwer of the vehicle, for a higher amount than that of the statutory limit and receives higher premium, then the liability of the insurer would be determined in terms of the policy. ( 11. ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar and Ors. , 1981 ACJ 93 following the ratio laid down in Sheikhupura Transport Companys case (supra), the Allahabad High Court has held that contract arrived at between the insurer and the insured for the higher amount than the prescribed limit in the Act, then for payment of compensation the terms of the policy will prevail. It has been further held : ". . . . . the compulsory insurance policy i. e. the one prescribed by the Act is a policy which contains the minimum requirements of coverage. The comprehensive third party liability may, however, cover against the legal liability for bodily injury or death of any party, even if it oversteps the limit provided for in the Act. The assured is free to go in for a policy for his own protection to the extent of the liability that may be incurred, even though it is in excess of the statutory limits. There appears to be no restriction contemplated by the Act which may militate against the view that it is open to the insurer to cover the risk upto a larger extent and if he does, the liability would be determined in terms of the risk so covered. " ( 12. ) WITH this angle, if the instant case is examined, the record reveals that in Ex. NA-1 the insurnace policy, the liability of the Insurance Company/appellant is upto Rs. 50,000/ -. " ( 12. ) WITH this angle, if the instant case is examined, the record reveals that in Ex. NA-1 the insurnace policy, the liability of the Insurance Company/appellant is upto Rs. 50,000/ -. The relevant clause reads thus : "limits of Liability - Limit of the amount of the companys liability under section Il-I (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event Rs. 50,000/ -. " Further, in section III of the terms of the policy under caption avoidance of certain Terms and Right of Recovery it is provided "nothing in this policy or any endorsement herein shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 96. But the Insured shall. . . . . . " Thus, the policy (Ex. NA-1) indicates that the insured has taken the policy for a higher amount than the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000/ -. Therefore, in such cases, courts are obliged under the law to confine limit of liability or compensation payable to the claimant to the extent of the policy amount. ( 13. ) SHRI Verma, learned counsel for the appellant could not lay his hand in pointing out any clause of the policy (Ex. NA-1) that despite the agreement arrived at between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle, for higher amount, than that prescribed Under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act, the compensation payable will only be to the extent of the limit prescribed under the Act. ( 14. ) THIS being so, the Insurance Company/appellant, after receiving premium for the higher amount i. e. Rs. 50,000/-, in the absence of such a clause, as indicated in the preceding para, the appellant is estopped to challenge that they are not liable to indemnify the owner or on his behalf the claimant/respondent No. 1, for higher amount than that prescribed under the law. ( 15. ) SHRI Verma next argues that the instant policy does not cover the risk aginst third person. ( 15. ) SHRI Verma next argues that the instant policy does not cover the risk aginst third person. He states that only a stranger if meets with an accident, in that case only the Insurance Company will be liable to the extent of the policy amount, but where passenger sitting in the bus meets with an accident, then the claim will be strictly governed by the provisions stated above making the insurer liable only to the extent of statutory limit of Rs. 15,000/ -. ( 16. ) I am afraid if Shri Vermas proposition is accepted then the well settled proposition of third party risk will be jeopardized. The policy binds the insurer to indemnify the insured to the extent the Insurance Company receives premium for covering the risk to the extent of the amount stated in the policy. Therefore, the contention of Shri Verma has no force that the passenger travelling in the bus does not come within the meaning of third party risk. No doubt, the words third party have not been defined in the Act or even in the Rules. Therefore, for dealing with this, we have to depend on the dictionary meaning. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, third edition, Vol. 4, pages 3019-3020 the meaning of the words third Party Risk has been given as below : " "third Party Risks" (Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. 5, C. 5, c. 43-s. 35) connotes that the insurer is one party to the contract that the policy holder is another party, and that claims made by others in respect of the negligent use of the car, may be naturally described as claims by third parties. " The Privy Council has also thus interpreted the words "third Party Risk" in Digby v. General Accidents, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, 1943 AC 121 and (see Assam Corporation v. Binu Rani and Ors. , 1974 ACJ 381 ). ( 17. ) THEREFORE, this Court has no hesitation to hold that deceased Asharam was a third Party and his loss is to be indemnified by the appellant to the extent of the liability of the policy of the insured. ( 18. ) WHILE pointing out Ex. , 1974 ACJ 381 ). ( 17. ) THEREFORE, this Court has no hesitation to hold that deceased Asharam was a third Party and his loss is to be indemnified by the appellant to the extent of the liability of the policy of the insured. ( 18. ) WHILE pointing out Ex. NA-1, insurance policy, during the course of arguments, Shri Verma stated that its part relating to the terms and conditions of the policy was not submitted by the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal. Therefore, Shri Verma supplied the said part of the policy. A photostat copy of the same is taken on record. ( 19. ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 750/-, if certified.