ORDER 1. This is an appeal under section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated 15.10.87, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 9/84 whereby an award of Ss. 48,400/- has been passed against the appellant and respondent No. 14 and 15 jointly and severally, in favour of respondents No.1 to 13. The respondent, aforesaid, are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% from 4.5.84 till realisation on the aforesaid amount. The other connected Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/88 arises out of the award dated 15.10.87 in Claim Case No. 8/94 passed by the same Claims Tribunal. The award given in this case amounts to Rs. 48,400/- against the appellant and respondents No.6 and 7 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12% from 18.4.84 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. In both these appeals common question of facts and law arise. The claimants are victims of accident took place on 27.2.84 when they were travelling in Bus No. MPD 4971. The order passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/88. 2. It is not necessary to give the facts in any detail because it is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that on 27.2.84 Bus No. MPD 4971 belonging to respondent No. 15, Suresh Kumar, was driven by Billa alias Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 14, dashed against a culvert near Mahatgaon in Betul District. The counsel for appellant-Insurance Company did not and could not challenge the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident was on account of negligence of the driver and the owner and the appellants are jointly and severally responsible for payment of damages. 3. The common argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant in both the appeals was that the appellant would not be liable to pay more than he statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- in all, for the accidents even though an extra amount of Rs. 528/- for 44 passengers was paid by the insurer in the net premium of Rs. 1700/-. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 15, Shri K.N. Pathiya, argued that the liability of appellant cannot be limited. We submitted that extra premium was paid to cover the additional liabilily to this party. 528/- for 44 passengers was paid by the insurer in the net premium of Rs. 1700/-. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 15, Shri K.N. Pathiya, argued that the liability of appellant cannot be limited. We submitted that extra premium was paid to cover the additional liabilily to this party. The appellant cannot deny it liability. 5. In order to understand the contention of the learned counsc1 for the appellant it is necessary to reproduce relevant terms shown in Ex. D-1, which is a comprehensive policy, as follows :- "SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES 1. Subject to the Limit of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) damage to properly caused by the use (including) the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. PROVIDED ALWAYS that-- (a) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriageway or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the motor vehicle for loading thereon or the taking away of the load from the motor vehicle after unloading therefrom. (b) 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 in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in relation to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or ascending or alighting from the motor vehicles at the time of occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises. (d) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or hold in trust by or in the custedy or control of the Insured or a Member of the Insured's household or being conveyed by the Motor Vehicle. (e) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to any bridge and/or weight-bridge and/or viaduct and/or to any road and/or anything baneath by vibration or by the weigh of the Motor Vehicle and/or load carried by the Motor Vehicle. (1) The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property caused by sparks or ashes from the Motor Vehicle or caused by or arising out of the explosion of the boiler of the Motor Vehicle. (g) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the explosion of the boiler of the motor vehicle unless such death or injury is caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place in India within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939." It is clear from the opening words of clause-1 of section II that company undertakes to indemnify the insurer subject to the limits of liability. Therefore, it is necessary to find out what are the limits of liability in case of death or bodily injury to any person caused during the course of an accident. In the same policy the limits of liability are given as follows:- "Limits of Liability Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under section 11-1 (i) in respect of anyone accident: Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limit 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." It is obvious that section 11-1 (i) refers to death or bodily injury and liability is "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939" and in case of damage to property referable to section 11-1 (ii) it is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. 6. Therefore, we must ask the question what are the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 50,000/-. 6. Therefore, we must ask the question what are the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The statutory liability is given in respect of vehicle carrying passengers as follows in section 95 (2) (b) of the Act: "95 (2) (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) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger." However, this liability is statutory in the sense that vehicle owner must compulsorily insure a third party to the extent given under the aforesaid section. This specifies the minimum statutory liability. On the other hand, section 95 (5) of the Act reads as follows: "95 (5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons...." The meaning and purport of section 95 (5) appears to this Court is that it enjoins the insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of a liability covered by the policy notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in any law. Now, non-abstante clause would cover each and every kind of law including the previous section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Thus, this section classifies the position that an insurer is bound to indemnify to extent risk covered by him. He is bound • to do so if he has contracted to pay more than the statutory liability. Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act is the minimum. The maximum depends upon the volition of the parties. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not prevent such a course. 7. Having considered this aspect of the matter we must now interpret the words' 'such amounts as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". These words do not refer to section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. On the other hand, they are by themselves delightfully vague. 7. Having considered this aspect of the matter we must now interpret the words' 'such amounts as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". These words do not refer to section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. On the other hand, they are by themselves delightfully vague. However, these words could not have meant a particular section like section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. It is clear from the reading of the proviso to clause I (i) and (ii) in section II. It mentions specifically clause (b) and (c) requirement" of section 95. The Insurance Company did not mention section 95 (2) (b) because the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 allowed it to contract and take extra premium and cover the risk according to premium. The extra-risk covered by a policy was not prohibited. The minimum in compulsory; the maximum is not. Thus, the receipt of extra premium has a significance which cannot be ignored. If the contention of counsel for the appellant be accepted than there would be absurdity. The Insurance Company would cover the same statutory liability whether it receives the minimum premium or more as stipulated here. It has charged Rs. 12/- per passenger more. In view of this matter the aforesaid words refer not to any particular liability but to requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. They are not limited to section 95 of the Act. They refer to general requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. They mean that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the insured to extent it is made liable under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The liability refers to liability of the insured owner under law of tort plus no fault liability. The insured would be deemed to be liable to extent insured is liable under the general law as provided by Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and statutory no fault liability. This appears to be the purport and meaning of the words "such amounts as in necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the case of M.K. Kunbimohammed v. P A. Ahmedkutty and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 2158 . This case is not an authority for the preposition that the insurer and insured cannot contract beyond the statutory limit. 8. On the other hand, there is ample authority of this Court for the contrary view. This case is not an authority for the preposition that the insurer and insured cannot contract beyond the statutory limit. 8. On the other hand, there is ample authority of this Court for the contrary view. In the case of Anupama v. Laxman Rao Sambhaji Rao reported in 1988 MPLJ 526 it was held that :- "If under the policy Ex.A-13 the Insurance Company wanted to restrict its liability in the present case, to the extent as contemplated by section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the words 'such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939' would have been worded differently thereby specifically stating that even in respect of third parties, even though extra premium is charged for passengers, the liability would be restricted as mentioned in section 95 of the said Act. The very words 'such amount' and 'requirement' itself contemplate that it is a mandatory requirement under the terms of the present policy. That apart, from the statutory liability in the present case the Insurance Company is also liable to fulfil the requirements covered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act itself and payment of compensation by the Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act being a requirement of the said Act, that liability is covered by the words 'such amount especially when under section II-liability to third parties' the company has specifically agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants' costs and expenses which the insured shall become liable to pay, subject to the provisions as mentioned therein, which are not attracted to the facts of the present case." This case was followed by Gulab Chand Gupta, J. in New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Ram Kumar Tamrakar and others reported in 1990 MPLJ 400 . Another Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chhotibai and others reported in 1995 ACJ 962 . S.K. Chawla, J. speaking for Division Bench expressed his opinion as follows: "But the expression used was "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". Ltd. v. Chhotibai and others reported in 1995 ACJ 962 . S.K. Chawla, J. speaking for Division Bench expressed his opinion as follows: "But the expression used was "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". The award for the entire sum of the compensation having been given under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the above expression would mean that the Insurance Company agreed to indemnify for the entire sum, liability whereof was incurred by the owner/insured under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanak Chand Ben, 1989 ACJ 169 (MP), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Kumar Tamrakar, 1990 ACJ 958 (MP) and Anupama v. Laxmanrao, 1988 ACJ 996 (MP), lend support to this view. We overrule the objection of the insurance company that it" liability was only limited to the extent of Rs.1,50,000. On the other hand, we hold that the insurance company is fully liable to indemnify for the entire compensation." 9. For the reasons given in the above paragraphs this Court comes to the conclusion that both these appeals are without any merit and are liable to be rejected. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with cost. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred), if certified.