Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.5.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 12 of 1987/A.C. 14 of 1991 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Purnia, whereby and whereunder total compensation amount awarded is Rs. 30,800.00 . 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the deceased Md. Imran, aged about 16 years, who was the son of the original applicant-respondent No. 1, Mohammad Yasin and in whose place after his (respondent No. 1) death his heirs have been substituted, met with accident on 11.3.87 while travelling in bus No. BRK 9727 going to his school. It is alleged that he was standing at the entrance gate of the bus. As the bus reached Lahtora Bus Stand, the deceased fell down from the bus and came under the wheel of the bus, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Thereafter he was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. It is not in dispute that the bus in question was insured with the appellant company. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of different issues raised in the case, held that original respondent No. 1 was entitled for the aforementioned compensation amount on account of the death of the deceased. 5. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that out of the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal, the company under the provisions contained in Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the Act) was liable to pay only Rs. 15,000.00 and not the entire awarded amount. 6. Sec. 92-A of the Act, which undisputedly is applicable to the facts of the present case, deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Chapter VIII of the Act contains the provisions relating to the coverage of insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Sec. 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act covers the cases of persons entitled for compensation other than passengers carried for hire or reward and the limit for such claim is Rs. 50,000.00 in all. Sub-clause (ii) provides for compensation of Rs. 15,000.00 in respect of each individual passenger. Under Sub-sec. Sec. 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act covers the cases of persons entitled for compensation other than passengers carried for hire or reward and the limit for such claim is Rs. 50,000.00 in all. Sub-clause (ii) provides for compensation of Rs. 15,000.00 in respect of each individual passenger. Under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 92-B of the Act, the right to claim compensation under Sec. 92-A in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right, including the right on the principle of fault to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force and Sub-sec. (3) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. (1), wherein in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under Sec. 92-A is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable to pay the first-mentioned compensation and (a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to first-mentioned compensation) only so much of the second-mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first-mentioned compensation; (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation. 7. According to the learned Counsel, the vehicle in question being insured against third party risks and the policy of insurance being covered by Section 95(2)(b), the liability of the appellant company cannot exceed beyond that. 8. Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle, has entered appearance by filing power through Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, learned advocate. However, none has appeared today on behalf of the said respondent. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents agrees that the liability of the insurance company under Sec. 95 read with Sec. 92-B(3) of the Act to pay compensation was only to the extent of Rs. 15,000.00 and for the remaining awarded amount, the liability was/is of the owner of the vehicle. 10. From the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Secs. Learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents agrees that the liability of the insurance company under Sec. 95 read with Sec. 92-B(3) of the Act to pay compensation was only to the extent of Rs. 15,000.00 and for the remaining awarded amount, the liability was/is of the owner of the vehicle. 10. From the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Secs. 92-A, 92-B and 95(2)(b)(i), the right to claim compensation for death or permanent disablement is in addition to the right on the principle of no fault as well as on the principle of fault. As the vehicle in question under the insurance policy was covered only with the limited liability under Sec. 95(2)(b)(ii), the liability of the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be fixed in terms of Sec. 92-B of the Act. Thus, the liability of the appellant company as per the policy being fixed only for Rs. 15,000.00 in terms of Section 95(2)(b)(ii), the remaining amount awarded on the principle of fault has to be paid by the owner of the vehicle and not by the appellant company. 11. Accordingly, I hold that liability of the appellant company, in the facts of the present case, is only Rs. 15,000.00 to be paid to the claimants out of the compensation amount awarded and in respect of the remaining amount, the liability is upon the owner of the vehicle, namely, respondent No. 2. 12. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the above extent and the impugned order whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has held the claimants to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,800.00 from the company is set aside. 13. From the impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant company has already paid Rs. 15,000.00 according to its liability and according to its learned Counsel, a sum of Rs. 7,900.00 has been deposited in this court in terms of Sec. 173(1) of 1988 Act. 14. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the aforementioned judgment of this court, the aforementioned amount deposited in this court may be directed to be refunded to the appellant. 15. 7,900.00 has been deposited in this court in terms of Sec. 173(1) of 1988 Act. 14. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the aforementioned judgment of this court, the aforementioned amount deposited in this court may be directed to be refunded to the appellant. 15. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents, I direct that in view of the aforementioned finding, the appellant will be entitled for refund of the amount deposited in this court in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 173(1) of 1988 Act.