Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. Heard both sides. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alleppey dated 25.10.1989 in O.P. (MV) No. 192/85 on its file. The Insurance Company is the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to the accident occurred and the insurance policy taken. Before the Tribunal it was argued by the Insurance company that their liability is clear from the policy terms and that the limits of liability has been clearly mentioned in the policy itself that is such amount as is. necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, it was argued that the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of third party personal injury is limited to statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Further in respect of third party damage where an enhanced limit was agreed to in the contract of insurance ie., Rs. 50,000/- as against the statutory requirement of Rs. 6,000/-. The enhanced limit was also clearly indicated on the face of the policy itself. 2. The Tribunal however interpreted the phrase "such amount as is necessary to, meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939" as any amount that may be awarded by the Tribunal. By interpreting so, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable for payment of the entire compensation of Rs. 1,49,675/- with interest at 9% and cost of Rs. 500/- awarded in the O.P. Aggrieved by the said award the Insurance company has preferred the above appeal. 3. We have perused the award of the Tribunal and heard the arguments of the respective counsel appearing on either side. On the other hand; similar contention was raised before us by the counsel for the Insurance Company. S.95(2)(b) provides that the policy of Insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the limits mentioned in sub-clause (a), (b) and sub clause (i) and (ii) of (b). S.95 sub-clause (2)(b) deals with the vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Sub-cl. (b)(i) of S.95(2) fixes the liability limit of the insurance company at Rs. 50,000/- in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the deceased is only third party. Sub-cl. (b)(i) of S.95(2) fixes the liability limit of the insurance company at Rs. 50,000/- in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the deceased is only third party. Therefore as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant the liability of the Insurance company is limited to the statutory requirement of Rs. 50,000/- only. As pointed out by him the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the fact that the premium charged is only Rs. 240/- ie. only the basic premium. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not taken note of the terms as per the contract of insurance which only provides that the Insurance Company is liable to pay such amount as is necessary to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The interpretation made by the Tribunal is not correct and such an interpretation is contrary to the terms of the statutory provisions. A similar view was taken by Division Bench of this Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saji (1V97 (2) KLT 695) relying on the decision of the apex court reported in 1988 ACJ 270 and also reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore & Ors. (AIR 1988 SC 719). In that case, the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret the meaning of the clause "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939", as contained in the section as it stood then. In this case, the accident has occurred on 4.3.1985. Therefore, the provisions as it stood then alone is applicable. The Supreme Court after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and also the provisions contained in the insurance policy has observed as follows: " A perusal of the policy, therefore, indicates that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle failing under S.11(1)(i) has been confined to such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". This liability as is apparent from clause (b) of sub-section(2) of S.95 of the Act, was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000/- only. This liability as is apparent from clause (b) of sub-section(2) of S.95 of the Act, was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000/- only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case felling under S.11(1)(i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company." In this case, as pointed out by the counsel for the appellant no additional premium was paid by the insured to the insurer so as to make the liability unlimited. Further there was no special contract between the parties so as make the liability different from what is enshrined in S.95(2)(b)(i) of the Act. We have also perused the policy marked as Ext. R1. As the liability of the Insurance company as provided under S.95(2)(b) is limited only up to Rs. 50,000/- the Insurance Company is liable to pay only Rs. 50,000/-together with interest at 12% from the date of the accident till the payment is made. It is represented by the counsel for the insurance company that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 9% has already been deposited. In our opinion the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is too low. Taking into consideration the tragic death of the deceased we modify the interest at 12%, instead of 9% as ordered by the Tribunal. The difference in interest shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal within two months from today. The modified interest at 12% is payable from the date of the petition till payment. Respondents/ claimants are at liberty to proceed against the driver, owner and the de facto owner who are respondents 6 to 8 in this appeal to recover the balance compensation awarded by the lower court. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed with the above modification. C.M.P. No. 5157/92 stands dismissed.