Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the Award dated 3.3.90, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore, by which the learned District Judge allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest @10% per annum. The learned District Judge further observed that Rs. 15,000/- paid to the claimants on account of `no fault liability may be adjusted against this amount of compensation. (2). No appeal challenging the award has been filed by the owner or the driver of the vehicle. The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the amount of the award. (3). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company, as per Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, after its amendment, was limited to only Rs. 15,000/- in each case and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding the appellant liable to indemnify the whole damages. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the jeep was comprehensively insured with the insurer and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, rightly held the insurance company liable to indemnify the whole of the claim. (4). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). The question : Whether the comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and the payment of higher premium on this score will increase the liability of the insurance company with regard to the third party risk, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of : national Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. and the Supreme Court held that :– ``comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on 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. 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. Likewise, if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers etc. in excess of the statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefore. This is the requirement of the Tariff Regulations framed for the purpose. (6). The same controversy regarding the limits of the liability of the insurance company under Section 95(2) (b) (ii) of the Act, again came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in : New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shanti Bai & Ors., and the Supreme Court, relying on the earlier decision in the case reported in 1988 ACJ 270, held that :– ``In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger and is clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant-company and respondent No.4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. As pointed out by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto the estimated value of the vehicle. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which is absent in the present case. Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of M.K. Kunhimohammed vs. P.A. Ahmedkutty. The appellant-company is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the extent that it has been directed to pay to respondents 1 to 3 any amount in excess of Rs. 15,000/-. (7). Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of M.K. Kunhimohammed vs. P.A. Ahmedkutty. The appellant-company is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the extent that it has been directed to pay to respondents 1 to 3 any amount in excess of Rs. 15,000/-. (7). In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above, it can safely be said that the liability of the insurance company under Section 95(2)(b) (ii) of the Act is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as per the amended provisions as there was no specific contract between the appellant company and the insured to cover unlimited liability with respect to an accident to the passengers. In the absence of any express contract the policy can cover only the statutory liability and not the unlimited liability. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding the appellant liable to indemnify the whole of the claim. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim upto the statutory liability, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. Merely because the policy issued by the insurance company was a comprehensive policy, it will not help the respondents in any manner and the liability of the insurance company will not become unlimited and the award against the insurance company cannot be made in excess of the statutory liability. It can only entitled the owner of the vehicle to claim reimbursement of the damages suffered by the vehicle as a whole and cannot extend the limit of the liability with respect to the third party risk. (8). In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The award passed by the learned District Judge awarding the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest etc., is maintained but, however, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the damages will be limited only to the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000/- with interest & costs.