ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. Heard counsel. 1. The only argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the case is squarely covered by the ratio of decision given by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470. According to him, when premium is paid at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger then the insurance company is liable to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only. 2. Before examining as to whether the aforementioned decision is applicable to the facts of this case, the facts in brief be noticed : One passenger, Mangla, was travelling in bus bearing No. C.P.G. 6289, on 1st of June, 1988. An accident took place. It is not disputed that Mangla died. To be precise, the fact that Mangla travelling in the bus and the further fact that he died is not being disputed. All that is being argued is that as per the terms of the policy, insurance company is required only to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and rest of the amount should be paid by the owner of the bus in question. It is pointed out that in the policy, the premium charged is Rs. 600/-. The number of passengers which could be carried has been mentioned. This number is 50. For this, premium was charged at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. In this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is right in his submission that the decision given by the Supreme Court of India in Shanti Bai's case (supra), would apply to the facts of this case. Reference was made to the earlier decision reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270, wherein it was observed that "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 is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle." What was observed in para 9 of the judgment is relevant and it be noticed as under : "In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of Rs. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured, a higher premium is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle." What was observed in para 9 of the judgment is relevant and it be noticed as under : "In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger and is clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger Under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant company and respondent No. 4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. As pointed out by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which is absent in the present case. Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of M. K. Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC). The appellant company is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the extent that it has been directed to pay to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 any amount in excess of Rs. 15,000/-." 3. The observations made above by the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts of this case. The insurance company would be liable only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and the rest of the amount would be met by the owner, namely; Dinesh Chandra Gupta, who is represented by Shri Arun Mishra, Advocate. 4. The insurance company/appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court on 7th of July, 1993. It is further stated by the counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has also been deposited at the time of filing the appeal. According to him, a total amount of Rs. 4. The insurance company/appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court on 7th of July, 1993. It is further stated by the counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has also been deposited at the time of filing the appeal. According to him, a total amount of Rs. 65,000/- has been deposited and the appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover the additional amount deposited over Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant/insurance company would be entitled to recover the amount from the owners by resorting to the provisions contained in Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 5. This appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above.