JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. For the death of one Krishna Kumar Mishra, aged about 45 years, arising out of the use of truck No. MBA 4266 owned by Pramod Kumar, driven by Gangaram and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company, occurred on 31.12.1986, the legal representatives of the deceased, that is, widow Chandra Rani Mishra and 3 sons, filed an application for compensation and claimed Rs. 3,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. It was averred that the deceased was employed in Government service in Education Department and was drawing Rs. 1,900/- per month who died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The owner, driver and insurer contested the claim. The insurance company also submitted that its liability was limited up to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. For award of compensation, the Tribunal estimated the monthly dependency at Rs. 1,240/-, yearly Rs. 14,880/-, applying the multiplier of 14, calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,320 wherein an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded under the head of consortium; from total amount a deduction of Rs. 15,000/- paid under Section 92-A of the Act was made. Thus a total amount of compensation of Rs. 2,03,320/- was ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, 11.4.1987, till deposit. 2. Aggrieved of the award dated 20.4.1989 passed in Claim Case No. 8 of 1987 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdol, the insurer and owner have filed these two separate appeals. 3. Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that the liability of the insurer is statutory and is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. The submission has no merit. The policy is Exh. D-l (c). Section II deals with liability to third parties. 3. Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that the liability of the insurer is statutory and is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. The submission has no merit. The policy is Exh. D-l (c). Section II deals with liability to third parties. Clause (1) of Section II says that subject to the limits of liability the company shall indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's costs 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 and (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. From the Schedule of premium it is clear that Rs. 100/- were accepted as the additional premium for increased third party limits. Therefore, on the face of the additional premium accepted for covering the unlimited third party liability, the insurer cannot escape its liability to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner for the liability in excess of the statutory limit to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. Coming to the appeal of the owner in respect of the quantum of compensation, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded is just and not excessive so as to call for interference. 6. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. The insurer shall deposit the amount under the award less already deposited by it within a period of two months failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). C.C. as per rules.