JUDGMENT 1. - The only grievance expressed on behalf of the claimant appellants during the course of arguments is that thought compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- was awarded but the Tribunal has limited the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company only upto Rs. 50,000/- whereas the liability of the Insurance Company is not limited one, but is unlimited and it is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation jointly and severally. Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Co. v. Snit. Sunita Dhanda, 1998(1) TAC 621 (Raj.) , O.F. & G. Insurance Co. v. Snit. Shahjahan, AIR 1997 MP 1 & Hastimal Lodha v. Smt. Shakuntala, 1998(1) TAC 641 . 2. On the other hand, it was canvassed on behalf of the respondent-company that the maximum liability under the Insurance Policy was Rs. 50,000/- only and there is no illegality in the observation of the learned Tribunal. Reliance was placed on Road Transport Co. v. Bhan Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 307 , National Insurance Company v. Nenu Devi, (1994) 1 ACC 222 and New India Assurance Co. v. Chandy Joseph, (1994) 1 ACC 406 (DB). 3. A look at the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent-Insurance Company on 12.4.1987 demonstrates that the policy as comprehensive one and the premium paid to the Insurance Company for liability to the public risk was Rs. 120/-. Tariff for Insurance premium chargeable for vehicles Motor Cab upto 1500 CC according to "India Motor Tariff-Schedule of Rates (Effective from 1.2.1982)" was as under : For 'Act only' liability - Rs. 100/ For liability to the 'Public Risks' - Rs. 120/ Witness Anand Sharma (NAW 1) examined by the respondent-company, in his statement, admitted that " bldh ewy iksfyl esjs gLrk{kj ls tkjh gqbZ FkhA blds fy;s 120@& fizfe;e FkMZ ikVhZ ykbZfcfyVh ds fy;s fn;k x;k gSA " Thus it is established that ordinary payment for 'Act only' liability was Rs. 100/- for covering the said risk and Insurance Company was paid extra premium for the liability to the public risk i.e. for covering the liability of death and bodily injury to the third party and for accepting the unlimited liability in such eventuality. My view finds support from the decision of Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Smt. Rukmani Devi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 148/1998 decided on 26.11.1998. My view finds support from the decision of Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Smt. Rukmani Devi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 148/1998 decided on 26.11.1998. I accordingly hold that in view of the extra premium, the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company to indemnity the insured could not be limited to statutory liability under section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 4. I am not impressed by the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. The authorities cited are not relevant in the instant case. They relate to 'Act only' policies and are clearly distinguishable. 5. Though argument in respect of-enhancement of compensation was not advanced on behalf of the appellants yet in view of averments made in the memo of appeal I scrutinised the record. I am broadly in agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal in so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation. 6. In view of what I discussed herein above the appeal stands partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent-Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by theAppeal partly allowed. *******