Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.9.1992 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Madhubani, in claim case No. 8 of 1987, whereby the learned Judge (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) in purported exercise of his power modified the judgment and award dated 26.2.1992 and has held that the entire amount of compensation is payable by the appellant insurance company. 2. In order to appreciate the case, it is necessary to state a few facts. Claim case No. 8 of 1987 was filed by the claimants-respondents in the court of the District Judge, Madhubani, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00 on account of death of Ram Chandra Sharma, son of opposite party No. 1, who met with an accident on 13.4.1987 caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration No. BPE 3675 owned by respondent No. 10, which vehicle was running from Muzaffar-pur to Benipatti as Prabhat Travels. The said bus dashed against the motor cycle owned by the deceased. The accident is said to have taken place at village Mohan Badhiyan on Sakari-Darbhanga road about 1 km. west of Sakari Chowk. The vehicle which met with the accident was being driven by the deceased with one Birendra Kumar Pandey who happened to be the bhagina of the deceased. It was alleged that on account of the accident, deceased sustained serious injury and died on way to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of his death and was a teacher in Brahmarshi Prathmik-Sah-Madhya Vidya-laya in village Panchratna. 3. Notice of the claim case was sent to the owner, respondent No. 10, who was opposite party No. 1 therein, but in spite of service of notice, the respondent owner neither appealed nor contested the case. The appellant insurance company appeared and contested the case by filing the written statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company but its liability was limited under Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that respondent No. 10 did not inform about the alleged accident which is an essential condition of the insurance contract. It was further stated that respondent No. 10 did not inform about the alleged accident which is an essential condition of the insurance contract. It was also stated that, in the absence of police report, driving licence, post-mortem report, age proof certificate and income certificate, P.S.V. badge, route permit, fitness of the vehicle, no liability devolves on the appellant insurance company. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after recording evidence and after hearing the parties, gave its award. In terms of the judgment, the Claims Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 3,17,481.00 . However, the learned Claims Tribunal accepted the defence of the insurance company that the liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 and held that a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 is payable by the appellant insurance company and the rest of the amount, i.e., Rs. 2,67,481.00 shall be payable by the opposite party No. 1 (respondent No. 10), the owner of the vehicle. 5. After about three months, respondent No. 10, the owner of the vehicle, filed a petition before the learned Tribunal for modification of the judgment dated 26.2.1992 on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was admittedly covered under the valid policy of insurance with the appellant and the policy was against unlimited risk of liability. It was stated in the said petition that respondent No. 10 did not appear nor did he file any written statement because his vehicle was insured and the compensation was payable by the insurance company. Respondent No. 10, the owner of the vehicle, further stated that an adverse inference could be drawn against the insurance company and entire amount of compensation should have been, awarded against it. The appellant insurance company filed rejoinder denying and disputing the allegations made in the petition for modification and resisted the same on the ground, inter alia, that the said petition was not maintainable at all. It further reiterated that the liability under the policy was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 6. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing respondent No. 10, owner of the vehicle and the appellant insurance company passed the impugned order whereby it reviewed the judgment and award and modified the same by holding that the appellant insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. 7. Mr. 50,000.00 6. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing respondent No. 10, owner of the vehicle and the appellant insurance company passed the impugned order whereby it reviewed the judgment and award and modified the same by holding that the appellant insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. 7. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant insurance company, urged before me that the learned Claims Tribunal has no power to alter or modify its judgment and award after three months or at any point of time. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petition for. modification was neither a review petition nor a revision petition nor an appeal. So, under such circumstance, the Claims Tribunal had no power to alter or modify the judgment and award. It was further submitted that the Claims Tribunal did not consider the two petitions filed by the appellant by way of rejoinder challenging the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal and the maintainability of the petition for modification. 8. Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 10, the owner of the vehicle, tried to justify the impugned order by submitting that the Claims Tribunal was right in awarding compensation and directing the appellant to pay the entire amount on the ground that the vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellant. However, the learned Counsel very fairly submitted that he is unable to justify the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain the petition for modification and/or review of the judgment and award. 9. There is no express provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to exercise the power of review and to modify the judgment and award after it is finally pronounced. The expression review is used in two distinct senses, namely, (1) procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it and (2) review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is equally well settled that when a review is sought due to procedural defect, inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, I have to see whether the exercise of power by the Tribunal in the instant case modifying the judgment and award was merely on the ground of a procedural defect or an error apparent on the fact of the judgment and award. 10. It was not the case of respondent No. 10, the owner of the vehicle, in his application filed for modification of the judgment and award that summons or notice of the claim case, was not served upon him or he was not aware about the filing of the claim case rather it was the specific case of the owner of the vehicle that he did not appear nor contested the case only for the reason that the vehicle was insured. According to him, compensation, if any, awarded was payable by the insurance company. Admittedly, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to hear the claim case after notice of the case was validly served on the owner of the vehicle and the judgment and award were pronounced ex parte. It further transpired from the record that the appellant insurance company took a specific plea that the vehicle was insured covering a limited risk. In other words, the liability was limited to the extent as contemplated under Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This defence of the appellant insurance company was not controverted by the claimants and, therefore, there was no error or illegality committed by the Claims Tribunal in accepting the case of the appellant insurance company and pronouncing the judgment and award and directing payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 by the insurance company and the remaining amount by the owner of the vehicle. In view of this admitted position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify or review the judgment and award by the impugned order. 11. During the course of hearing, parties were directed to produce a copy of the policy for perusal of this Court. In view of this admitted position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify or review the judgment and award by the impugned order. 11. During the course of hearing, parties were directed to produce a copy of the policy for perusal of this Court. Although the petition for modification filed by the owner of the vehicle was simply on the ground that the vehicle was insured covering unlimited risk, the owner of the vehicle did not produce the copy of the policy before the Claims Tribunal nor the lawyer of the owner of the vehicle produced the same for my perusal. A photostat copy of the insurance policy was produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant before me. On perusal of the said policy, it does not appeal that unlimited risk was covered under the said policy and payment of additional premium as required under law was made. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention here that the observation made by the Apex Court in Jugal Kishores case 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), which reads as follows: (6) We have accordingly perused the photostat copy of the policy to ascertain whether risk for any amount higher than the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 contemplated by Clause (b) aforesaid was covered. Our attention was invited by learned Counsel for the respondents to the circumstance that at the right hand corner on the top of page 1 of the policy the words Commercial Vehicle Comprehensive were printed. On this basis and on the basis that the premium paid was higher than the premium of an Act only policy it was urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the liability of the appellant was unlimited and not confined to Rs. 20,000.00 only. We find it difficult to accept this submission. Even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an Act only policy it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured a higher premium than for an Act only policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured a higher premium than for an Act only policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. 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-sec. (2) of Sec. 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. Likewise, if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers, etc., in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor. This is the requirement of the Tariff Regulations framed for the purpose. Coming to the photostat copy of the policy in the instant case it would be seen that Section II thereof deals with liability to third parties. Sub-sec. (1) minus the proviso thereto reads as hereunder: (1) Subject to the limits of liability the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of- (i) death 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 property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal modified the judgment and award simply on the ground that since a copy of the policy was not produced and proved by the insurance company at the time of hearing the claim case, the entire compensation amount ought to have been awarded against the insurance company. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal modified the judgment and award simply on the ground that since a copy of the policy was not produced and proved by the insurance company at the time of hearing the claim case, the entire compensation amount ought to have been awarded against the insurance company. It appears that the appellant insurance company, along with the rejoinder to the petition for modification, filed a copy of the policy but the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the same on the ground that the said policy was not exhibited and did not become part of the record. Learned Claims Tribunal further held in the impugned order that because of non-filing of the insurance policy by the insurance company, the judgment and award ought to have been passed against the appellant insurance company and not against the owner of the vehicle. It is no doubt true that in a claim case when the insurance company comes forward with a defence of limited liability and the same is contested by the insured then it is incumbent upon the insurance company to file and prove the insurance policy to show that under the policy the liability was limited, failing which the Claims Tribunal shall have no option but to saddle the insurance company with the entire liability for payment of compensation. Had the Claims Tribunal pronounced the judgment and award against the insurance company alone because of non-filing of the insurance policy then the order would have been otherwise. But, in the instant case, the defence of the insurance company that its liability was limited was not controverted by the owner of the vehicle who did not even bother to appear and persuade the court to believe that the vehicle was insured with an unlimited liability. 13. In my opinion, in such circumstances, the owner of the vehicle cannot and shall not be allowed to come forward, after the judgment and award were pronounced, with a case that the judgment and award should be modified because the liability of the insurance company under the policy was unlimited. I am also of the view that, after the judgment and award were pronounced, the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and to modify the judgment and award on the ground mentioned therein. I am also of the view that, after the judgment and award were pronounced, the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and to modify the judgment and award on the ground mentioned therein. The only remedy available to the owner of the vehicle was to challenge the judgment and award by filing appeal before this Court and not otherwise. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is set aside and the judgment and award dated 26.2.1992 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 8 of 1987 are restored. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs.