JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the respondents challenging the Award and Judgment dated 5th May, 1994 passed by Shri Brij Mohan Chouhan, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Neem Ka Thana in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 38/88 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,92,800/-along with interest from the date of the claim application. 2. Facts given in the case are that the claim application was filed on 5th August, 1987 alleging that on 5th March, 1987. one deceased Shri Rakesh Kumar while returning from Khatu Shyamji to his village in a truck bearing registration No. HYD-957 wherein he had boarded at the instance of the driver and had died because of accident. The truck met an accident and because of the negligence of the truck driver said Rakesh Kumar was injured. He was moved to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur but died on the way. He was matriculate and was earning about Rs. 720/- to Rs. 1,000/- p.m. An amount of Rs. 6 lacs was claimed as compensation. Issues were framed in regard to negligent driving of the truck and also about the entitlement of the compensation. On the evidence having been led by the parties on issue No. 1, it was found by the Tribunal that the truck was being driven by Arvind. It was found on issue No. 1 that had the truck driver driven the vehicle cautiously, he would have avoided the accident and thus the accident had been caused because of the negligent and rash driving of the truck driver. On issue No. 2, it had been found that the deceased was earning about Rs. 800/- and thus a total amount of Rs. 1,92,800/- was awarded. 3. Another argument was raised on the objection having been taken by the Insurance Company that the truck was insured as a goods carrier vehicle and no passenger was insured. Policy had been produced Ex. 1. It was argued that there is no risk covered so far as passengers are concerned and maximum insurance liability is Rs. 1.50 lacs. It was further argued that no extra premium was paid. Policy had been produced Ex. 1. It was argued that there is no risk covered so far as passengers are concerned and maximum insurance liability is Rs. 1.50 lacs. It was further argued that no extra premium was paid. After discussing certain authorities quoted by the respective parties, the Tribunal had come to a finding that as a matter of fact the driver had allowed the passengers to travel with the intention of taking fare from these passengers and thus none of the passenger in the truck was a gratuitous passenger. The issue was decided against the Insurance Company. 4. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner on various judgments i.e., Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Company Ltd., 1982 A.C.J. 191 : 1982 T.A.C. 353 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Saloni Dargan and others, 1990A.C.J. 127 : 1990(1) T.A.C. 642 , Santra Bai and others v. Prahlad and others, 1985 A.C.J. 762 : 1985(2) T.A.C. 240 , Smt. Paroo and others v. Likhma Ram and others, 1997(2) W.L.C. (Raj.) 396 : 1998(1) T.A.C. 80 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Irawwa and others, 1992 A.C.J. 918 : 1992(2) T.A.C. 615 for the proposition that if a passenger is travelling in the goods vehicle, the risk of the person travelling in the goods vehicle is not covered for the reason that such vehicle is not meant for carrying passengers and, therefore, it is submitted that as per the terms of the insurance policy, the insurer cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation. 5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Insurance Company can be held liable for the compensation only up to Rs. 1.50 lacs as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and for the said proposition the appellant relies on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and others, 1988 A.C.J. 270 ; 1988(1) T.A.C. 418 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lai and others, 1988 A.C.J. 754 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagannath Singh and others, 1995 A.C.J. 683 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dama Ram and others, II (1994) A.C.C. 627 : 1994(2) T.A.C. 571 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lai and others, 1988 A.C.J. 754 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagannath Singh and others, 1995 A.C.J. 683 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dama Ram and others, II (1994) A.C.C. 627 : 1994(2) T.A.C. 571 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hurmat Begum and others, A.I.R. 1994 J&K 1 : 1993(2) T.A.C. 205 and Azad Nadodar Bus Service and another v. Harbans Singh and others, 1989 A.C.J. 1165 : 1990(1) T.A.C. 308 . 6. The relevant portion of Section 95 reads as under : "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy, which xxx xxx xxx (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits : (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle." 7. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the truck driver was carrying the deceased and he must have charged amount for such travelling in the truck and in such a situation it cannot be said that the insurer was not liable however, as per the provisions of Section 95(2)(a) as reproduced above, the maximum limit of insurance is Rs. 1.50 lacs. The appeal of insurer is to succeed on that ground. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company-appellant shall be liable to pay Rs. 1.50 lacs along with interest, etc. as the maximum liability. However, in the present case amount awarded is Rs. 1,92,800/- and if the amount has already been paid to the claimants, despite the liability having been up to Rs. 1.50 lacs, it shall be appropriate that the excess amount if paid shall not be recovered from the claimants and in case the full amount has not been paid so far, in that situation, the Insurance Company shall be liable to only Rs. 1.50 lacs along with accruable from the date as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. 1.50 lacs, it shall be appropriate that the excess amount if paid shall not be recovered from the claimants and in case the full amount has not been paid so far, in that situation, the Insurance Company shall be liable to only Rs. 1.50 lacs along with accruable from the date as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The misc. appeal is disposed of with the above said observations. *******