JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - These two appeals u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act are directed against the award of the Tribunal and the Appellant is the Insurer of the vehicle ORR 2661. On account of the death of the deceased, who was travelling on the very. vehicle ORR2661, two claim cases were filed one by the widow of the deceased which was registered as Misc. Case No. 90 of 1980 and is subject-matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 30 of 1984 and the other by the mother of the deceased which was registered as Misc. Case No. 91 of "1980 and is the subject-matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 1984. The Tribunal was awarded a sum of Rs. 72.000/- in favour of the widow and Rs. 12,000/- in favour of the mother of the deceased. 2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was proceeding to Delhi and was travelling on the vehicle ORR 2661 on a hire basis, on 2.0-6.1980. It was raining heavily. Another vehicle bearing registration number ORR 257 had been parked on the road between Gosala and Bhati road Crossing near Bargaih. The driver of the vehicle ORR 2661 which was being driven at a high speed could not see the vehicle in front which had been parked on account of heavy raining and could not apply the brakes in time .as a result of which the same dashed against the parked vehicle and on the parked vehicle certain logs had been kept which were pushed inside the cabin of the truck on which the deceased was moving and the deceased died at the spot. 3. The owner of the Truck ORR 2661 denied the allegation that the deceased was moving on the truck as a passenger for hire and so far as the accident in question was concerned, It was pleaded that it was raining at the time and it had become dark and therefore, the visibility was very poor and even though the driver of the vehicle was' driving at a very low speed, but as the timbers on truck No. ORR 257 had protruded outside, the same dashed against the front portion of the vehicle ORR 2661. It was also pleaded that the parked vehicle had no light and no sign to indicate that the same had been parked. It was also pleaded that the parked vehicle had no light and no sign to indicate that the same had been parked. The present Appellant who was the Insurer of the vehicle ORR 2661 admitted that the vehicle 'ORR 2661 had been insured with it out denied the allegations made in the claim petitions. So far as the vehicle ORR 257 is concerned, though the owner was impleaded as a party, yet as the claimants could not,know the name of the Insurer of the said vehicle the said Insurer had not been made a party. 4. The Tribunal on consideration Of the materia Is before him came to the conclusion, that the driver of the truck ORR 2661,was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and was responsible for causing the accident and therefore, the owner and the Insurer of the said vehicle would be liable to pay the compensation in question, On the question of quantum of compensation after' taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the' monthly salary he was receiving and all other relevant factors, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation for the widow at Rs. 72,000/- and for the matter at Rs. 12.000/-. 5. At the outset, it may be made clear that the Appellant being the Insurer has no right to challenge either the finding of negligence or the quantum of compensation in view of a catena of decisions on this point. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, also does not challenge the findings of the Tribuna] on that score. The learned Counsel however, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore and Others, contends that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for more than the statutory amount fixed u/s 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal erred' in law having directed the entire compensation to be paid by the Insurer Appellant. u/s 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the Insurer in case of a good vehicle is limited to Rs. 50.000/-. But that statutory liability u/s 95 (2) (a) will not restrict in any manner to a special contract between the parties, whereunder the Insurer accepts an unlimited liability. u/s 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the Insurer in case of a good vehicle is limited to Rs. 50.000/-. But that statutory liability u/s 95 (2) (a) will not restrict in any manner to a special contract between the parties, whereunder the Insurer accepts an unlimited liability. In other words, where the Insurer accepts the policy accepting the liability to an unlimited extent then notwithstanding Sub-section (2) of Section 95, the said Insurer would be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation even beyond Rs. 50.000/- and cannot take recourse to Sub-section (2) of Section 95. The. Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant was examining a case where the policy of insurance was comprehensive and in that context the Court was examining the extent of liability of the Insurer on the said policy apart from the premium the Insurer had taken half present as the insured's estimated value and the policy was comprehensive. In that context the Supreme Court considered the policy and held that merely because the policy was comprehensive that would not mean that the Insurer accepted the unlimited liability with regard to the third party risk and therefore, the Insurer would be liable only to discharge the statutory liability fixed under Sub-section (2) of Section 95. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But the question for consideration is whether reading the policy in question, can it be held ;that the Insurer accepted an unlimited liability so far as the third-party risk is concerned. It transpires from records that the owner of the vehicle did not produce the original policy in question though he appeared and contested the matter. On behalf of the Insurer who is the Appellant in these two appeals a photostat Copy of the policy was produced. In the said policy, apart from the premium, extra premium to the extent of Rs. 1.50,000/- had been paid. No materials were produced by the Appellant to indicate that the said extra premium was not for accepting the unlimited liability with regard to the third party risk but for some other specified risk. It was within the special knowledge of the Insurer as to the purpose for which the extra premium had been paid. 1.50,000/- had been paid. No materials were produced by the Appellant to indicate that the said extra premium was not for accepting the unlimited liability with regard to the third party risk but for some other specified risk. It was within the special knowledge of the Insurer as to the purpose for which the extra premium had been paid. Since they have not proved the purpose for which the said extra premium had been paid the conclusion of the tribunal that a bare look at the document would indicate that the lnsurer accepted its lability at least to the extent of Rs. 150.000/-, cannot be said to be contrary to law. In fact notwithstanding the provision contained in Clause (b) of Section 95 (2), it is always open to the Insurer to take a policy covering a higher risk than contemplated under Clause (b) and consequently, Clause (b) is read subject to the terms of the policy. In the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Another the Supreme Court held that the Insurer could always take a policy covering risks which are not covered by Section 95 of the Act. I have also looked to the photostat copy of the policy which was produced, before the Tribunal to ascertain whether risk for any higher amount than the amount mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 95 was covered or not and I agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Insurer under the policy at least agreed to cover the liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50.000/-. In that view of the matter and the compensation amount being Rs. 84.000/- in all, the Insurer would be liable to pay the entire compensation, I do riot find any infirmity in the contention of the Tribunal and Mr. Roy's contention on this score must, therefore, be rejected. 6. On behalf of the owner of the vehicle cross-appeals have been filed wherein the owner challenges the finding regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the drive of the vehicle. Roy's contention on this score must, therefore, be rejected. 6. On behalf of the owner of the vehicle cross-appeals have been filed wherein the owner challenges the finding regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the drive of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, the fact the logs had been protruding outside the dala of the truck and with such protruding logs the vehicle had been parked on the National Highway without giving any light or sign would indicate, at least that the vehicle ORR 257 was also negligent in contributing to the accident in question and therefore, the liability should be apportioned. The aforesaid contention though sounds attractive yet does not stand the scrutiny. The Tribunal scanned the entire evidence on record, and has come to the finding of intelligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle ORR 2661 OR the ground that though it was raining heavily so much so that there was practically no visibility of the road yet the driver drove the vehicle with speed and could not apply the brakes in time when he saw the parking vehicle in front. I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal is to the effect that at the point of time when the accident occurred it was raining heavily and it was night and there was absolutely no visibility of the road. It is also, the evidence that even in such a condition the driver of the vehicle was driving with speed. 'In this view of the matter the conclusion of the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle was tash and negligent cannot be interfered with by this Court. I would therefore, reject the said submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the owner in support of the cross-appeals filed by the owner. 7. In the net result therefore, the appeals and the cross-appeals are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed