JUDGMENT A.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri by order dated 28th of November, 1994, gave an award for payment of Rs. 14,500/- as compensation by the appellant to respondent No. 1 for the damage done to the vehicle of respondent No. 1 by a bus insured. 2. On 24th of August, 1991, one vehicle No. DLIG 6716 belonging to the Central Reserve Police Battalion was being driven on its left side on Shivpuri-Jhansi Road. One Bus No. MP 08-3271 being driven rashly and negligently from the opposite side dashed against the vehicle of C.R.P.F. on the wrong side causing extensive damage to the vehicle. This accident took place near Chinkara Motel on Shivpuri-Jhansi Road. A claim was put in for the damage by the respondent No. 1. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents 2 and 3 who are the owner and driver of the bus had contested the claim petition. They had stated that the driver of the bus was not negligent. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the vehicle of C.R.P.F. on the wrong side causing damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 14,500/- for which necessary repairs vouchers were produced. The liability of the Insurance Company was also not found to be limited and the award was made. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company S/Shri K. K. Sharma and B. K. Dubey, and counsel for the respondent No. 1-Union of India, Shri N. P. Mittal, Senior Advocate, and perused the record. 7. The appellant had raised only one point in this appeal. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the liability under the insurance policy was limited to Rs. 6,000/- and the award of Rs. 14,500/- could not be recovered from the appellant. The liability of the appellant was limited only to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- and the balance of award may be recovered from the owner of the bus. 8. The damage done to the vehicle of the C.R.P.F. to the extent of Rs. 14,500/- is not disputed. 9. On the point of limited liability, the appellant relied on the terms of the insurance policy, which has been filed on record. 6,000/- and the balance of award may be recovered from the owner of the bus. 8. The damage done to the vehicle of the C.R.P.F. to the extent of Rs. 14,500/- is not disputed. 9. On the point of limited liability, the appellant relied on the terms of the insurance policy, which has been filed on record. According to the terms of the policy, there is a clause for limited liability, in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- only. Under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the extent of liability of the insurance company in respect of the damage to any property of a third person has been limited to Rs. 6,000/- only. The appellant/Insurance Company placing reliance on this provision contended that the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company could not exceed that amount and the balance could be recovered from the owner of the bus. On this point, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalchand Gupta, 1993 (II) MPWN 10 . In that case, it was held that under the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, in accordance with the provisions of section 95(2)(d) of the old Act, for damage to the property of any third person the liability of the insurance company is Rs. 6,000/- only. Similar provisions have been incorporated in section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This liability of Rs. 6,000/- only in respect of the damage done to property of any third person is a statutory liability, and the insurance company could not be held liable for any amount more than that. 10. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, (1988) I SCC 626, the Supreme Court had laid down the same principles that whenever the liability is made limited by statutory provisions, the same could not be exceeded in any way. The only obligation placed on the part of the insurer was to bring it to the notice of the Court to the original policy. The statutory liability must have been incorporated, and disclosed in the policy of the insured. 11. The only obligation placed on the part of the insurer was to bring it to the notice of the Court to the original policy. The statutory liability must have been incorporated, and disclosed in the policy of the insured. 11. In this particular case, the policy itself contains this limited liability clause, which was disclosed to the insured, and as such, the obligation fastened on the part of the insurer has been fully discharged by placing the policy on record and claiming limited liability under the statutory provisions. As such, the contention of the appellant/insurance company is borne out from the policy itself and is in accordance with the statutory provisions of section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and must be accepted. 12. The result is that, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1/Union of India of Rs. 14,500/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum is confirmed. But the liability of the appellant/insurance company is confined to the statutory limitation of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. six thousand only). The balance of the compensation awarded shall be recovered from the owner of the bus-respondent No. 2 Vinod Sagar Sood.