JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals have been filed by the insurance company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', dated 29.5.1992 by which the M.A.C.T. had awarded compensation of Rs. 95,000 in the case of Appeal No. 135 of 1993 and Rs. 75,000 in Appeal No. 43 of 1993. The claim applications were filed before the M.A.C.T. because of the accident occurred on 9.5.1989 at 5.00 a.m. when Abdul Rahim and his brother Abdul Mazid going on a bullock-cart were hit near Pharsia by the bus No. RNP 2964 coming from behind as a result of which Abdul Rahim died at the spot and Abdul Mazid sustained grievous injuries of fracture and shortening of leg by one and a half inch. 30 per cent disability had been caused to Abdul Mazid. After leading the evidence the Tribunal had come to the finding that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus involved in the case. This finding of rash and negligent driving has not been challenged before me. 2. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award the insurance company had filed an Appeal No. 43 of 1993 only on the limited question that under Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability which could be fixed on the insurance company was Rs. 50,000 and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal was illegal in this respect. 3. No such issue was claimed by the insurance company before the M.A.C.T. except the production of the insurance cover Exh. D-1. No further evidence was led oral or documentary by the insurance company. No such arguments were ever raised before the Tribunal by the appellant with the result that the M.A.C.T. awarded compensation holding the insurance company liable to pay the amount. 4. Relying on the various judgments rendered in the cases of Surjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, 1996 ACJ 457 (P&H) Smt. Rajendra Kumari v. Smt. Shanti Trivedi and other, AIR 1989 SC 1075 : 1989 (1) T.A.C. 334 : 1989 ACJ 517 (SC) and placing reliance upon a single Bench judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhiki, 1997 ACJ 1099 (Rajasthan) , on the proposition it is submitted that the appellant is liable to pay the limited liability amount as mentioned in the statutory provisions. 5. Ltd. v. Bhiki, 1997 ACJ 1099 (Rajasthan) , on the proposition it is submitted that the appellant is liable to pay the limited liability amount as mentioned in the statutory provisions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC) : 1988 (1) T.A.C. 418 and Draupadi Devi v. Inder Kumar, 1996 (3) W.L.C. 356 : 1998 ACJ 418 (Rajasthan) and submits that despite the fact that there are statutory limitations provided under the Act if the insurance company has charged a higher amount under the head of third party insurance, the liability of the insurance company becomes unlimited so far as the death of or the injuries to the third party are concerned. I have also gone through the copy of the insurance cover which has been produced before me. The amount charged against the third party insurance is Rs. 240 whereas the tariff to be charged for the purpose of third party insurance could not be more than Rs. 200. Admittedly, in the instant case, the insurance company had failed to produce any evidence except the insurance cover and on the cover the amount of liability had not been mentioned at all. It is nowhere mentioned on the insurance cover that the liability imposed is not more than Rs. 50,000. In the similar circumstances where a premium of Rs. 240 was charged for the third party insurance instead of Rs. 200 this Court in the case of Draupadi Devi v. Inder Kumar, 1998 ACJ 418 (Rajasthan) (sic) in which it had been held that there is no bar for the insurance company to contract out of the statutory liability. In the present case, the insurance company had failed to produce any evidence to show that despite the fact that no amount of the limited liability had been mentioned on the insurance cover and also despite the fact that the premium was charged as Rs. 240 instead of Rs. 200 as to in what circumstance, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount more than the statutory liability amount. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lal, 1988 Supp. 240 instead of Rs. 200 as to in what circumstance, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount more than the statutory liability amount. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lal, 1988 Supp. S.C.C. 506 : 1988 ACJ 754 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the insurance policy produced by the appellant clearly shows that the insurance company had undertaken to indemnify the insured to the extent of Rs. 50,000 only. Similar is the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhiki, 1997 ACJ 1099 (Rajasthan) in which it has been observed that in the absence of any express contract the policy can cover only the statutory liability and not the unlimited liability. In the instant case, if the insurance company was desirous to take a plea as has been raised in the present appeals, the insurance company ought to have claimed the issue in this regard and led the evidence. Admittedly, no oral evidence had been led by the insurance company except production of cover note of the insurance policy which does not in anyway benefit the insurance company for the contentions being raised in the present appeals. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******