This appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ) against the award dated 27"h Jane, 1991 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S iillong, in MAC Case No. 11 of 1987. A Mini Bus No. MLK 2303 was involved in an accident on 2.3.87 and as a result the husband of the claimant No. 1 and the father of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 died. The claimant filed a case claiming compensa­tion of Rs. 12 lacs ;MAC Case No. 11 of 1987). Seven issues were framed by the Member, MACT, Shillong. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant and the respondent No.4 examined 1 (one) witness. The owner also proved the policy (Ext A). After closure of the evidence the Tribunal gave an award of 1.50,000/-. The Tribunal also held that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount and accordingly the insurance company was directed to pay the awarded amount within a period of three months from the date of the award, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest 12% per annum. Against that award, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also respondent No. 4. 3. During pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.4 died and his legal heir, namely, Smti Rubina Hay Diengdoh was substituted. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to decide an important issue, namely, Issue No. 5 whether the deceased was a passen­ger or a pedestrian and the liability of the insurance company depends on the decision of this said issue. Secondly, Mr. Jindal submits that the Tribunal committed manifest error by fixing the liability of paying the entire awarded amount to the appellant. This is contrary to the provisions of law and the condition of the policy of insurance. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant, however, disputes the submission of Mr. Jindal. Similarly Mr. Kynjing, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also disputes the submission of Mr. Jindal. 4. On the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether the impugned award is sustainable in law. Mr. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant, however, disputes the submission of Mr. Jindal. Similarly Mr. Kynjing, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also disputes the submission of Mr. Jindal. 4. On the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether the impugned award is sustainable in law. Mr. Jindal draws my attention to the last line of the evidence of CW 5 (Tarun Baruah, SI of Police, MLP) where he stated that the victim fell down from the foot board of the bus. From this evidence it is clear that the petitioner was a passenger and not a pedest­rian. However, Mr. Jindal candidly submits that the CW 5 was not an eye witness, his evidence is based on the statements recorded by him under section 161 CrPC. Mr. Das, on the other hand, draws my attention to the portions of the evidence of PW 6, 7 and 8. As per the evidence of the said witnesses, the deceased was a pedestrian. The evidence of CW 5 is based on the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 CrPC. and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied on. On the other hand, there is positive evidence of PW 6, 7 and 8, wherefrom, it is abundantly clear that the deceased was a passenger. Accordingly, I hold to be so and the insurance company is, there­fore, liable to pay compensation in accordance with law. 5. The next contention of Mr. Jindal is that as per the terms of the policy of insurance the appellant is liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. He draws my attention to Ext A. Ext A contains the conditions of the liability of the insurance company. The limit of liabilities as per the Ext A is imited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. I quote that portion of the condition : "...limits of the amount of the Company's liability under section 11-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event : Rs. 50.000/-." 6. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the insurance company undertook to take the risk of Rs. 50,010/- only. In this connection, Mr. Jindal has drawn my attention to a decision, National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi as. Jugal Kishore & others reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 . 50.000/-." 6. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the insurance company undertook to take the risk of Rs. 50,010/- only. In this connection, Mr. Jindal has drawn my attention to a decision, National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi as. Jugal Kishore & others reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held thus : 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. In case, however, it is got com­prehensively insured a higher premium than for an 'Act only policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entities 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. Compre­hensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium of this score. However, do 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 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." 7. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement had stated that the vahicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and as such, he was not liable to pay any compensation even assuming that the accident did take place. However, there is neither any averment in the written statement nor there is any evidence to show that there was a special agreement between the owner of the vehicle and insurance company. Mr. KS Kynjing has also not been able to show that there is anything in this regard. 8. Mr. LR Das has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court reported in (1993) 1 GLR 149, but this decision has no application in the present case. 9. That being the position, the liability as per the policy, the appellant can not be burdened with the entire amount, because the liability is only limited to the extent Rs. Mr. LR Das has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court reported in (1993) 1 GLR 149, but this decision has no application in the present case. 9. That being the position, the liability as per the policy, the appellant can not be burdened with the entire amount, because the liability is only limited to the extent Rs. 50.000/- as per Ext A. Therefore, I modify the award dated 27th June, 1991 to the extent that the insurance company shall be liable to pay only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the rest will have to be paid by the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.4).Mr. Jindal states that at the time of filing of this petition, appellant insurance company had deposited a sum of Rs. 40.000/- and the claimant withdrew the said amount, The balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- will have to be paid by the insurance company to the claimant and the rest by the owner of the vehicle respondent No. 4. 10. With the above direction, this appeal is partly allowed.