Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This Misc. appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.10.88 and decree dated 30.11.88 passed by the Addl. Claims Tribunal-cum-4th Addl. District Judge, Hazaribagh in Claim case No. 99/86 whereby the said Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 against New India Insurance Company Ltd. who has preferred this appeal. 2. It may be mentioned here that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also filed a cross-objection against the said judgment and award dated 5.10.88 praying therein to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,20.000.00 . 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that one Sri Nagarmal Agrawalla was travelling on 7.12.83 in a Bus bearing No. BRM 8471 (Mini Bus) and was going form Charhi to Hazaribagh. When the said Mini Bus reached near Charhi Ghat at about 2 p.m. it dashed against a truck coming from the opposite direction causing injuries to the deceased, Nagarmal Agarwalla who was sitting in the front portion of the vehicle by the side of the driver. He was seriously injured. He was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where he was given first aid and subsequently he was advised to be taken to RMCH, Ranchi for treatment. Accordingly, he was taken to RMCH were he underwent treatment but he succumbed to his injuries at about 11 P.M. in the night on the same day. A criminal case being Mandu PS case No. 446 (12) 83 was registered under Secs. 379 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Post mortem was held over the dead body of the deceased. It was further stated that the deceased was engaged in the business of dealing coal and was having a monthly income of Rs. 1500.00 with which he was supporting and maintaining his family members consisting of his widow and children. Due to his death the family suffered loss and became practically destitute. At the time of death the deceased was aged about 37 years. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the dependants of the deceased. Claim was filed on 21.7.86 i.e., after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for that purpose. Accordingly, a petition for condonation of delay was filed which, on preliminary hearing, was allowed by the Claims Tribunal condoning the delay subject to any prejudice to the rights of said respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the dependants of the deceased. Claim was filed on 21.7.86 i.e., after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for that purpose. Accordingly, a petition for condonation of delay was filed which, on preliminary hearing, was allowed by the Claims Tribunal condoning the delay subject to any prejudice to the rights of said respondents. The owner of the Mini Bus and the insurer were impleaded as opposite parties. Both the Insurance Company and the owner appeared before the Claims Tribunal and adduced their evidences. After considering the evidences and the submissions of the parties, the Claims Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 80,000.00 to the petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to be paid by opposite party No. 2, Insurance Company Le., the appellant in this appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, Insurance Company has filed this appeal. The appellant has made the owner of the vehicle as party-respondent No. 5 in this appeal. As stated earlier, respondents 1 to 4 have also filed a cross-objection disputing the quantum of award and have submitted that they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000.00 . 5. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay any amount to respondents 1 to 4 as claimed by them for the death of Sri Nagarmal Agrawalla and if they are found entitled, then to what amount. Similarly, it is also to be considered in the cross-objection whether the awarded amount deserves to be increased. 6. Mr. Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company has submitted mainly on three points, firstly, whether the delay in filing of the claim petition after about two and half years can be condoned under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , if not, then the claim is barred by limitation and, secondly, whether in a case where the Bus was hit by a truck which escaped after the accident, the insurer of the Bus will be liable or it will be dealt with under Sec. 109C of the M.V. Act, 1939 and, thirdly, what will be the quantum of compensation to be awarded in this case if the insurance company is liable for such payment. 7. During the course of argument the point regarding quantum of compensation was mainly pressed. 7. During the course of argument the point regarding quantum of compensation was mainly pressed. In this connection learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Shanti Bai arid Ors. , wherein it was held that where minimum premium are the rate of Rs. 12.00 per passenger has been paid by the owner the policy covers only statutory liability of Rs. 15,000.00 and the fact that the insurance policy was comprehensive, is immaterial. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that a copy of the policy has been admitted in evidence as additional evidence. From the said policy it will appear that the premium paid on 31 passengers was Rs. 372.00 i.e., Rs. 12.00 per passenger and hence the said decision of the Supreme Court is fully applicable in the present case. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the cross-objection the respondents 1 to 4 have stated in para 4 that the Court below should have directed the owner of the vehicle, Mr. Qayum Ansari, respondent No. 5 to pay the amount which is beyond the statutory liability of the appellant. In that view, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the liability beyond Rs. 15,000.00 is that of the owner and not of the Insurance Company. It is, therefore, submitted that the Insurance Company at best is liable for statutory amount of Rs. 15,000.00 and not beyond that. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that even if it is treated that the Insurance Company is liable only to pay Rs. 15,000.00 the rest of the amount of Rs. 65,000.00 has to be paid by the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No. 5. Cross-objection field by them, however, has not been seriously pressed except that if the appellant is found liable to pay only Rs. 15,000.00 the rest of the amount be ordered to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 5. 9. Nothing has been submitted on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 5. Therefore, in view of the facts and law stated above, the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, Insurance Company will be liable to pay only Rs. 15,000.00 being the statutory amount to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Therefore, in view of the facts and law stated above, the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, Insurance Company will be liable to pay only Rs. 15,000.00 being the statutory amount to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. If the said amount has not yet been paid by the appellant, the same should be paid forthwith. As regards rest of the amount i.e., Rs. 65,000.00 the same shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 5, Md. Qayum Ansari. 10. With this modification in the order of the Claims Tribunal, this appeal is allowed in part. The cross -objection also stands disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.