Judgment : P. SATHASIVAM, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 insurance company in M. C. O. P. No. 33 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli is the appellant in the above appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the death of one S. Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 18. 2. 89. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for Rs. 45,000 in favour of the claimants and directed the owner and insurer to pay the same. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) MR. R. Vedantham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company after taking me through Exh. B-l insurance policy, Exh. B-2 schedule of rates as well as the oral evidence of RW 1, an officer of the insurance company would contend that its liability is restricted up to Rs. 15,000, accordingly the award directing the insurance company to pay rs. 45,000 cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that the Tribunal is justified in arriving at conclusion of directing the insurance company also to pay the amount, accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the rival submissions. ( 5 ) THE only question to be considered is whether in terms of statutory provisions as well as insurance policy the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 15,000 as claimed or the entire amount of Rs. 45,000 as ordered by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE vehicle involved in the accident is a passenger van and the deceased was one of the passengers. In support of the claim of the insurance company through its officer who was examined as RW 1, policy is marked as Exh. B-l and schedule of rates as Exh. B-2. In Exh. B-l under the heading schedule of Premium it is stated: "add: For LL passengers 5 as per END imt 13. . . Rs. 60. 00. " in other words, it is clear that the owner has paid the same at the rate of Rs. 12 per passenger for five passengers. If that is so, exh. B-2. In Exh. B-l under the heading schedule of Premium it is stated: "add: For LL passengers 5 as per END imt 13. . . Rs. 60. 00. " in other words, it is clear that the owner has paid the same at the rate of Rs. 12 per passenger for five passengers. If that is so, exh. B-2 schedule of rates shows that the liability of the insurance company for one passenger is restricted to Rs. 15,000. This aspect has been explained by RW 1 with reference to Exhs. B-l and B-2. This has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN this regard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very much relied on the recent decision of the Apex court in Road Transport Company v. Bhan Singh, 1998 ACJ 1101 (SC ). After considering the relevant statutory provision as well as similar policy, their Lordships have concluded thus:"section 95 (1) (b) (i) provides for compulsory insurance against any liability which may be incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person. Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) provides for compulsory insurance against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) being a specific provision made in respect of passengers of a public service vehicle, obviously that provision becomes applicable and not the general provision contained in section 95 (1) (b) (i), when the insured incurs liability in respect of the passengers travelling in his public service vehicle. Before the Tribunal and the High Court also, the appellant had claimed the protection of section 95 (1) (b) (ii ). Therefore, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, cannot now be permitted to bring the appellants case under section 95 (1) (b) (i) on the ground that it is wide enough to include a passenger as the word used therein is any person. Even otherwise also, this contention has no substance. Therefore, the liability of the insurance company will have to be determined in terms of section 95 (2) (b) (ii ). It is not in dispute that at the relevant time section 95 (2) (b) (ii)limited the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 5,000 each passenger and Rs. Even otherwise also, this contention has no substance. Therefore, the liability of the insurance company will have to be determined in terms of section 95 (2) (b) (ii ). It is not in dispute that at the relevant time section 95 (2) (b) (ii)limited the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 5,000 each passenger and Rs. 75,000 in all, where the vehicle was registered to carry more than 30 but not more than 60 passengers. "it is clear from the above said decision, in terms of Exhs. B-l and B-2 in the absence of any additional premium covering higher liability, the liability of insurance company for one passenger is only Rs. 15,000. ( 8 ) IN the light of the factual and legal position, the contrary view taken by the tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the award of the court below, is modified and the liability of the insurance company, respondent No. 2 therein is restricted to rs. 15,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. Except the above modification the award of the Tribunal in all other respects is hereby confirmed. ( 9 ) NET result, the appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Appeal allowed.