Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Compensation Case No. 42 of 1983. 2. The son of claimants-respondents Krishna Devi and Puranmal Sharma, namely, Madan Mohan Sharma, aged 27 years was a Professor in the Department of Commerce in Singhbhum College at Chandil under the Ranchi University. At the time of accident, he was getting Rs. 1,500 per month. On Sunday, i.e., 4.9.983, while he went to the house of Mr. M.C. Sharma, Advocate, for some urgent work and the next morning, he left for Chandil to join his duty, he boarded the bus, namely, Annapurna Bus bearing registration No. BRS 8306 owned by Annapurna Shikshit Berojgar Motor Paribahan Sahyog Samiti. On the way to Chandil when the above bus was crossing the bridge on Kuju river, it fell into the flooded river and was washed away with its passengers. Search was made and eventually the dead body of Madan Mohan Sharma was recovered on 7.9.1983, near Seraikella. The accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver. As per the claim of the claimants, the vehicle at the relevant time was alleged to be insured with the appellant insurance company. Both the owner and the insurance company contested the claim case. 3. The first and foremost objection from the side of the opposite parties in the claim case was that it was not an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus rather due to act of God the bus fell down into the flood water. It has also been challenged that because of flood water the passengers had never been washed away. The deceased Madan Mohan Sharma was sitting in the middle of the bus and there was no scope of washing away of the deceased Madan Mohan Sharma due to flood water. Those facts were considered by the learned Claims Tribunal when the evidence was adduced from the side of the parties. No evidence was adduced from the side of the insurance company and after scrutinising the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Those facts were considered by the learned Claims Tribunal when the evidence was adduced from the side of the parties. No evidence was adduced from the side of the insurance company and after scrutinising the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Following the principle of res ipsa loquitur it appears that the accident must have been caused due to the negligence of the driver as seeing the flood water also he had proceeded on the river bridge. Thus, on this point, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned award and practically on factual aspect of the matter the insurance company had got no right to challenge when the owner had contested. 4. On the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the insurance company that their liability is restricted to Rs. 15,000 only as per Sec. 95 (2) of the Act as it was a passenger bus and hence even if any amount of compensation is granted in favour of the claimants-respondents, the liability of the insurance company cannot be more than Rs. 15,000 and the rest amount may be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the owner of the vehicle had contested vehemently that the vehicle was insured comprehensively with the appellant insurance company and the whole of the liability of the owner should be indemnified by the insurance company and the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly done so. In the Claims Tribunal, no policy was filed but in the appeal, attempt has been made to prove the insurance coverage by filing a petition for leave of the court to adduce additional evidence in the case. When the insurance policy was not filed and the same has been contested hotly regarding comprehensiveness of insurance of the vehicle in question, there remains little scope to entertain this petition at a belated stage for adducing the additional evidence only to fill up the lacuna, hence, this petition is rejected, and when no insurance policy is there, then the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of British Indian Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. V/s. Maya Banerjee, 1986 ACJ 946 (SC), is attracted. 6. Mr. Ins. Co. Ltd. V/s. Maya Banerjee, 1986 ACJ 946 (SC), is attracted. 6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC), wherein it was held that when statutory liability has been fixed by the statute itself, then such liability should be construed in its proper perspective. In the above case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), was referred but the decision arrived at in Jugal Kishore (supra) has not been distinguished. 7. On the point of quantum of compensation, on going through the relevant factors for quantum, I feel that the learned court below has committed some error of law in computing compensation. In the nature and circumstances of the case, I feel that a lump sum of Rs. 1,15,000 (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) should be provided as compensation. The interest at the rate of 12 per cent as levied by the learned Claims Tribunal shall also be intact, but while calculating the compensation, the date of deposit of Rs. 15,000 towards no fault liability should also be construed. Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the claimants-respondents has conceded to the quantum to be fixed by this Court. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is thus partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent as indicated above.