JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Award and decree dated 1.12.89 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal decreed the claim of Smt. Teeja and others and awarded a sum of Rs. 67,200/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the insurance company has placed reliance over : New India Assurance Co. v. Smt. Shanti Bai & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1113 . Learned counsel for the owner and driver of the bus, on the other hand, have submitted that the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the National Insurance Company and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the whole of the claim. Alternatively it has been submitted that if the insurance company is held liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- then the liability of payment of the remaining amount may be fixed on the R.S.R.T.C., with whom the bus was put under contract and at the relevant time the bus was operating on the route sanctioned in favour of the R.S.R.T.C. and the respondents, though are owner and the driver, are not liable to pay the amount of compensation. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. that the owner of the bus Rajpal Singh and its driver Ashok are liable to pay the compensation and the Corporation, with whom the bus was under contract, is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance over : Usha Sehgal & Ors. v. Chhotu & Ors., 1985 ACJ 515 and New India Assurance Co. v. Smt. Shabbu & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 205 of 1985 . 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The first question requires consideration is the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the claim awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The insurance policy covering the vehicle in question has been placed on record by the insurance company. The limit of the liability of the insurance company, under section 2-1(b) of the Act, has been fixed at Rs. The insurance policy covering the vehicle in question has been placed on record by the insurance company. The limit of the liability of the insurance company, under section 2-1(b) of the Act, has been fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. No extra premium to cover the unlimited liability has been paid by the insured, Rs. 545/- along with additional amount of Rs. 12/- has been paid as the annual premium per passenger to cover the risk of the third party. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : New India Assurance Co. v. Shanti Bai, AIR 1995 SC 1113 where there was no special contract between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle to cover unlimited liability in respect of the accident to the passengers and the premium which was paid by the owner @ Rs. 12/- per passenger, it was, therefore, clearly referred to the statutory liability under section 95(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The policy, in the present case, therefore, covers only the statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- per passenger. Thus, the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest. 5. The next question which requires consideration is : who will be responsible to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 17,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum? The contention of the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. is that the owner and the driver of the bus are liable to make payment of the compensation amount while the contention of the learned counsel for the owner and the driver of the bus is that it is the Corporation with whom the bus was put under contract and it was being plied on the route under the permit granted in favour of the Corporation and as such the Corporation is liable to make payment of the amount of compensation. 6. The bus, at the relevant time, was in the contract with R.S.R.T.C. and it was being plied on the route under a permit granted in favour of the Corporation. It was under the exclusive control of the Corporation. 6. The bus, at the relevant time, was in the contract with R.S.R.T.C. and it was being plied on the route under a permit granted in favour of the Corporation. It was under the exclusive control of the Corporation. The Corporation has not filed any reply to the claim petition nor this stand was taken before the Tribunal that under the agreement in the case of an accident, the liability will be of the owner and the driver of the Bus and not that of the Corporation. Even the Agreement, under which the bus was being plied, has not been placed on record. In the absence of any contract on record it cannot be said that there was any condition included in the contract exonerating the R.S.R.T.C. from the liability to pay the compensation amount. The judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable in the present case because in both those cases the agreements were produced on record and in the agreements there was a clause that the bus would be plied by the driver of the owner and not by the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. and the owner will pay the salary to the driver. There was, also, a clause that the Corporation will not be liable for any damages or compensation in the case of an accident and the owner of the bus will be liable to pay compensation. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Corporation is liable to make payment of the remaining amount of the compensation. 7. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed. The award, passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 67,200/- to the claimants, is maintained and the defendant-respondents Ashok Kumar, Rajpal Singh, R.S.R.T.C. and the National Insurance Company are jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of the compensation. However, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the claim is limited only to the extent of its statutory liability of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest on this amount. The rest of the amount of award shall be paid by the R.S.R.T.C., the owner and the driver of the vehicle.Appeal partly allowed. *******