Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This is an appeal by the insurer against the award of the Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act whereby the Tribunal passed award for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000.00 to pay the claim in favour of the claimants. 2. On 23.9.1987 a Transport Bus bearing Registration No. BPI 8921 started for Baloutta. The bus was full to capacity and many persons boarded at the roof of the bus also. The driver of the bus was behaving in a negligent manner, although he was warned by the passengers several times. At about 10 P.M. in the night, the vehicle started from Chauparan and after giving some distance, the driver took a turn in a very high speed. The persons occupying the roof were hit by the branches of the trees. Some person occupying the roof of the bus were thrown away while others sustained grievious injuries and died. The driver was also seriously injured. It was alleged that the deceased Maghu Singh, who was conductor of the bus, he was also thrown out from the bus when it took a turn. He was. aged about 25 years and getting salary of Rs. 1,000.00 The learned Claim Tribunal accepted the case of the claimants and awarded compensation which has been assailed by the insurer. The Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Claim Tribunal erred in awarding compensation against the insurer for the reasons that the driver of the offending bus was guilty of violation of Motor Vehicle Act and in terms of the Insurance policy, the insurer is not liable. The liability shall be borne by the owner of the bus. The Tribunal has negative the defence set-up by the insurer-appellant. 3. The learned Tribunal has observed that according to the evidence, some passengers had forcibly boarded the roof of the bus but the Insurance Company failed to prove that this amounted to violation of the term and conditions of the licence. As, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act or in the policy, the Tribunal held rightly that the insurer cannot escape from the liability. As, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act or in the policy, the Tribunal held rightly that the insurer cannot escape from the liability. The Tribunal further held that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to 50,000.00 only in terms of Sec. 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act because the deceased was not a passenger. The Govt. Advocate submitted that the Tribunal awarded huge amount i.e. Rs. 1,40,000.00 on a wrong calculation, contrary to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in 1994 ACJ 1 (Gen. Manager Kerla State Road Corporation). 4. The tribunal in its well considered order found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. In paras 22 and 23 of the Judgment the tribunal has discussed the case sought to be made out by the appellant as follows: 22. I am not inclined to accept any of the contents made on behalf of the Insurance Company. From the evidence available on the record, it becomes apparent that some passengers forcefully boarded at the roof of the bus. The Insurance Company failed to move that forceful travel on the roof of the bus was the violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. If the Company wanted to take benefits on the score of violation of terms and condition of the licence, the onus was on the company to prove such violation. But it was not done. Regarding second contention of the Insurance Company it may be stated that no doubt the liability of the Insurance Company is limited up to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 but such limit of liability is in case of passengers. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the deceased was conductor of the bus and not a passenger. 23. Thus undoubtedly, the aforesaid Insurance Company would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants. The issues under consideration are decided by recording a findings that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,64,000.00 (One Lacs sixty four thousand) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e. from 15.3.1988. till its realisation, less the amount of interim compensation if already paid. 5. 1,64,000.00 (One Lacs sixty four thousand) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e. from 15.3.1988. till its realisation, less the amount of interim compensation if already paid. 5. Shri Tiwary, learned Counsel for the claimant has submitted that the insurer has a limited defence in a proceeding under Sec. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The plea of the appellant that its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000.00 only is misconceived because the policy of Insurance was not filed by the insurer He relies on AIR 1981 SC 1704 in which decision a similar plea was rejected by the Supreme Court. 6. Shri Eqbal learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly the bus was carrying passengers beyond its registered capacity which amount to violation of Motor Vehicle Act. This contention cannot be accepted. Shri Eqbal has placed his strong reliance on G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thoms -- (Supra) in which decision the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for assessment of compensation by application of multiplier method of assessment. The quantum of compensation cannot be challenged in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I do not find any thing in this decision of the Supreme Court to reduce the compensation. I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 500.00 .