S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 being the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , the insurer of a public vehicle who feels aggrieved of the award dated 20. 8. 88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. Case No. 30 of 1983, whereby there was a direction upon it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the loss of life of one Kashinath Banerjee, along with interest at the rate of 61/2 per cent from the date of filing of the claim till its realisation. The claimants were the widow and a minor son of the deceased Kashinath Banerjee. ( 2 ) A claim petition being one under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) was preferred by or on behalf of the widow and a minor son of the deceased, who had lost his life in an accident that took place on 31. 10. 1982 when he was travelling in a public passenger bus bearing No. WBU 67 and was thrown out of the vehicle due to heavy jerk as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The accident took place at Makardah Road within P. S. Bantra, District Howrah. ( 3 ) SINCE the appellant has challenged only the quantum of the compensation during the course of the hearing of this appeal, it may not be necessary to go into any further details of the occurrence beyond what has been noted above. It may be further added here that though the owner of the bus being defendant No. 1 also was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, the impugned award did not lay any liability on him. It was only upon the insurer of the vehicle, that is, the appellant-defendant No. 2 upon whom the sole liability was imposed to pay the amount of compensation, which was determined at a sum of Rs. 40,000. It was only upon the insurer of the vehicle, that is, the appellant-defendant No. 2 upon whom the sole liability was imposed to pay the amount of compensation, which was determined at a sum of Rs. 40,000. There was admittedly no cross-objection preferred by or on behalf of the claimants to impose any liability also on the owner of the bus and in this way the claimants have forfeited any sort of claim against the owner of the vehicle, by way of vicarious liability of the owner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by his employee, that is, the driver of the bus in question. The fate of the appeal thus hangs over only this aspect of the matter whether the appellant insurer was liable to pay compensation as determined by the Tribunal. The sole ground of appeal which was urged in the course of hearing was that the appellant's liability in the instant case was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000 only as provided under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, straightaway corning to the provision of law under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the old Act, there appears no manner of doubt also because of credence extended by a recent decision of the Supreme Court that in the event of any bodily injury caused by the use of the public vehicle, the insurer of the vehicle was liable to compensate the passenger for the injury sustained by him. There was no escape for the insurer from such liability which would be covered under Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) of the aforesaid Act, but such liability of the insurer had been subjected to a limit as per provision contained in Clause (ii) of Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. Neither it has been denied nor it could be done as such that the limit as prescribed in the law was to the extent of Rs. 15,000. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court, by a decision in the case of Noorjahan v. Sultan Rajia alias Thaju, has determined in no uncertain terms that the compensation to be awarded to a passenger of a public service vehicle covered under Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act would be subject to the limit as provided in Clause (ii) of Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. In this view of the matter, there is no alternative than to uphold the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was liable to compensate only to the extent of Rs. 15,000 and not Rs. 40,000 as imposed through the award under challenge. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part. The award under challenge is modified so as to hold the appellant liable to compensate the claimants for the death in question only to the limit of Rs. 15,000. The claimants would, however, be entitled to the interest over the said amount which is determined at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim till its realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. This order would, however, be subject to set-off of the amount already deposited/paid by the appellant in favour of/or to the claimants-respondents.