JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal impugning the award dated 28.5.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that on 13.11.1977 the deceased- Anandilal boarded the Bus No. RJL 8507 on the top of it and was coming from Khejroli to Chomu. He fell down from the aforesaid bus and died on account of fatal injuries. The claimant respondent instituted claim petition stating therein that deceased was Assistant Teacher and was earning Rs. 600/- per month. His age was 44 years and 4 months at the time of death. As the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus the claimants were entitled to the damages. The appellant-insurance company submitted written statement and raised the statutory plea of licence and further stated that the claimants were only entitled to be compensated under section 95(2)(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. From the pleadings of the parties as many as 8 issues were framed. The claimants examined six witnesses. On behalf of the opposite party driver of the bus Mohanlal and one Narain was examined. After hearing the parties the learned respondent awarded compensation to the claimants as indicated hereinabove, 3. Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the liability fastened on the appellant is beyond its statutory limit. The respondent acted illegally in awarding compensation against the appellant-insurance company jointly and severally with that of the owner and driver of the bus in question. From the insurance policy the liability on the insurer of the bus cannot be fastened for more than Rs. 5,000/- in view of Section 85(2)(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The pleadings and the evidence adduced before the Tribunal were not properly appreciated. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 623 . 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned award and contended that there is no illegality in the impugned award and compensation was awarded in view of the provisions contained under section 95(2)(b)(2) as the capacity of the bus was 36 passengers and liability of the appellant was Rs. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned award and contended that there is no illegality in the impugned award and compensation was awarded in view of the provisions contained under section 95(2)(b)(2) as the capacity of the bus was 36 passengers and liability of the appellant was Rs. 75,000/- as it was carrying more than 30 passengers. 5. I have reflected over the rival submission and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. Admittedly the appellant-insurance company did not produce witnesses in support of its contention. Narain NAW- I and Mohan Lal NAW-2, who were conductor and driver of the bus appeared in the witness box. The insurance policy was produced by the appellant and it was admitted by the advocate of the claimants. A bare look at the insurance policy demonstrates that the carrying capacity of passenger was 38 in all. Extras premium Rs. 216/ in respect of liability of 36 passengers was paid. The appellant could have explained contents of the insurance policy by adducing evidence before the respondent and could have established that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- but as already stated no witness was produced before the Tribunal by the appellant. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, AIR 1996 SC 2627 in para 12 of the judgment propounded that burden lies on the insurance company to establish a particular fact alleged by it. 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal (supra) it was propounded in para 8 thus "8. In the light of the above a ratio laid down by this Court and in view of the fact that no extra premium was paid towards unlimited liability as is clear from the Policy produced before the Tribunal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside." 9. In that case insurance policy was exhibited through witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company and no extra premium was paid towards unlimited liability. Whereas in the instant case as already stated a look at the insurance policy reveals that extra premium was paid. Under these circumstances ratio of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. Whereas in the instant case as already stated a look at the insurance policy reveals that extra premium was paid. Under these circumstances ratio of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in respect of cross-objections. A careful scrutiny of the entire record reveals that the award was rightly calculated by the learned Tribunal and it cannot be said that it was inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of what I have discussed above, the miscellaneous appeal as well as the cross-objections fail and are dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******