N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the insurer's appeal questioning the liability fastened by the Claims Tribunal, Bijapur, in M. V. C. No. 292 of 1987. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the parents of the deceased Raghavendra filed a claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 3,17,000 on account of his death in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 2. 6. 1987 at about 5. 00 p. m. near Managoli village on Bijapurbasavana Bagewadi Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo bearing registration No. MYJ 7972 by its driver while the deceased was accompanying as a passenger in the said vehicle. ( 3 ) THE appellants-respondents filed statement of objections resisting the claim petition. ( 4 ) THE claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and produced Exhs. P-l to P-l1 whereas the appellants-respondents examined RW 1 and produced the policy of insurance marked as Exh. R-l. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal considering the evidence and the police records held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo bearing registration No. MYJ 7972 by its driver and further considering the evidence and the age of the parents awarded a total compensation of Rs. 90,000. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , being aggrieved of the liability fastened on it has come up with this appeal. 5-A. Claimants filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy Exh. R-l, the maximum liability in respect of per passenger is rs. 30,000 and 6 passengers have been covered. The premium paid is at the rate of Rs. 30 per passenger and the total premium paid is Rs. 180. Therefore, the limit of the insurance company in respect of the death or bodily injury is limited to rs. 30,000. He further contended that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the entries made in the policy of insurance and the premium paid. He further submitted that the decision relied on by the claims Tribunal is impliedly overruled in m. F. A. No. 1157 of 1984, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court as held in para 6 thereof. He further submitted that the decision relied on by the claims Tribunal is impliedly overruled in m. F. A. No. 1157 of 1984, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court as held in para 6 thereof. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC ). It is held that the liability of the insurance company is in accordance with the premium paid and in the case on hand, the premium paid is Rs. 30. Therefore, the liability per passenger is restricted to Rs. 30,000. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal to the extent of its liability. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondentsclaimants submitted that the liability fastened on the insurance company is proper and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. Respondent No. 3, the owner though served, remained unrepresented. ( 8 ) THE points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the Claims Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company? (2) If so, the liability to be interfered with? ( 9 ) IN the unreported decision in M. F. A. No. 1157 of 1984, at para 6 it is stated as under:" (6) This takes us to the next question as to the liability of the insurer. It was contended on behalf of the insurer that having regard to the premium paid the liability is restricted only to Rs. 50,000 in respect of the third parties. It was pointed out that comprehensive premium of Rs. 476 has been paid and as per the tariff and also the decision of this court in United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Azeerunnisa, 1982 (1) kar LJ 91, the payment of this premium of Rs. 476 covers the liability only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and not more. As per the tariff Rs. 476 paid as comprehensive premium creates the liability only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants. However, our attention was invited to the decision of this court in Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. 50,000 and not more. As per the tariff Rs. 476 paid as comprehensive premium creates the liability only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants. However, our attention was invited to the decision of this court in Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Jagadish Babu, 1986 ACJ 890 (Karnataka), wherein it has been held by this court that if the columns are left blank in the insurance policy regarding the liability, it should be taken that the insurer has undertaken unlimited liability. In view of the decision of the Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), wherein it has been held that a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of extra liability undertaken by the insurance company and that the requirement of the Tariff Regulations in this regard should be complied with, before fastening a higher liability on the insurance company. We find that the decision of this court relied upon by the learned counsel stands impliedly overruled and it cannot assist the appellants to fasten higher liability on the insurer, on the mere ground that there is a blank in the policy regarding limit of liability of the insurer. When there is such a blank in the policy, the court has to verify the premium paid and whether that premium paid covers 'act only' policy risk or whether it covers any higher risk. When undisputedly the premium paid in the present case does not cover the higher risk, the mere fact that in the column of liability there is a blank will not enure to the benefit of the claimants to fasten a higher liability on the insurer. Therefore, the liability of the insurer in the present case has to be limited only to Rs. 50,000 and the interest thereon and the balance of the amount has to be paid by the owner. " ( 10 ) IT is pointed out that the court has to examine the amount of premium paid to cover the risk and whether the payment of the premium is in accordance with the tariff Regulations or not. 50,000 and the interest thereon and the balance of the amount has to be paid by the owner. " ( 10 ) IT is pointed out that the court has to examine the amount of premium paid to cover the risk and whether the payment of the premium is in accordance with the tariff Regulations or not. It is only in case if the total premium is paid according to the Tariff Regulations, then only holding the insurance company liable for unlimited liability does arise. In the decision (supra), it is also observed that the decision in oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co, Ltd. v. Jagadish Babu, 1986 ACJ 890 (Karnataka), is impliedly overruled. In that view of the matter, merely because of the reason that some columns are left blank, the court should not proceed to hold that the liability is unlimited. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also supported by the decision in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC), wherein at para 8, it is held as under:"it was contended before the High Court that a separate premium has been paid for the passengers. This shows that there was a special contract to cover unlimited liability in respect of passengers between the appellant company and respondent No. 4. The Tribunal as well as the High Court seem to have proceeded on the basis that the appellant company had charged an extra premium of 0. 50 paise per passenger to cover the risk of unlimited liability towards passengers. This seems to be an error. The premium of Rs. 600 has been paid in respect of 50 passengers. The policy clearly shows this. It is not 0. 50 paise per passenger. It is pointed out by the appellant company with reference to its tariff in respect of 'legal liability for accidents to passengers' that if the limit of liability for any one passenger is fifteen thousand rupees, the rate of annual premium per passenger is Rs. 12. If the limit is twenty thousand rupees, the rate of premium per passenger is Rs. 23 per annum and so on. In respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger is Rs. 50. "a plain reading of the observations of the supreme Court makes it clear that according to the premium paid, the insurance company has to be made liable. 23 per annum and so on. In respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger is Rs. 50. "a plain reading of the observations of the supreme Court makes it clear that according to the premium paid, the insurance company has to be made liable. If the premium per passenger is Rs. 50, then the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellants has produced the Tariff Regulations. At page 43, it provides for the payment of premium and also the extent of liability which reads as under:"legal LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS To PASSENGERS (1) Applicable to all passenger vehicles except, (i) motorised rickshaws, (ii) miscellaneous vehicles, and (iii) motor trade (road risks) limit of liability limit of liability limit of liability limit of liability any one passenger rs. 15,000 rs. 20,000 rs. 30,000 unlimited premium per passenger rs. 12 rs. 23 rs. 30 rs. 50" ( 11 ) IF the premium paid is Rs. 12, the liability of the insurance company per passenger is Rs. 15,000. If the premium is rs. 23, the liability of the insurance company is Rs. 20,000. If the premium is rs. 30, the liability of the insurance company is Rs. 30,000, and if the premium is rs. 50, then the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. In that view of the matter, it has to be examined as to what is the premium paid by the owner to cover the risk of the passengers. ( 12 ) ON a perusal of the policy of insurance, the capacity of the vehicle is 6+1, that is 6 passengers with one driver. In respect of 6 passengers, at the rate of rs. 30, the premium paid is Rs. 180 and, therefore, it is clear that the liability of the insurance company per passenger in respect' of death or bodily injury is only rs. 30,000 and the judgment of the Apex court lends support to the case of the appellants. Therefore, it has to be held that the liability of the appellants has to be restricted to the extent of Rs. 30,000 only with proportionate interest and costs and the balance amount of compensation has to be made good by the owner. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed restricting the liability of the insurance company to the extent of rs. 30,000 only with proportionate interest and costs and the balance amount of compensation has to be made good by the owner. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed restricting the liability of the insurance company to the extent of rs. 30,000 with proportionate interest and costs and the cross-objection filed is dismissed as the same is not maintainable in the appeal filed by the insurance company in the light of the decision reported in ILR 1990 Kar 483. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .