Judgment :- United India Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in all these appeals. The respondents/claimants are either the injured persons or the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased. The appellant challenges the award passed by the Tribunal only on the ground that their liability is limited under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and that therefore the order passed by the Tribunal directing them to pay the entire amount awarded which is over and above of the limited liability is not proper. Hence, it has became unnecessary for me to go into the details of the case. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the accident had taken place on 16.8.1985 and the vehicle involved is a passenger van bearing Reg. No. TME 7962 which is admittedly insured with the appellant. It is submitted that the owner of the said passenger van had taken Insurance Policy with the appellant and the same has been marked as Ex. Bl in which he had paid a sum of Rs. 240/- for 20 passengers i.e., at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. The India Motor Tariff has been marked as Ex. B2 in which at page 19 the legal liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the accident to the passengers vehicle is shown that if Rs. 12/- per passenger is paid as premium, the liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-As such it is contended on behalf of the appellant that their liability is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and the same was not properly considered by the Tribunal. 3. The learned advocate for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the policy of Insurance is a contract of indemnity between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company and the same is not binding on the claimants. Even otherwise, the Insurance Company is not entitled to question the award passed by the Tribunal and they have to simply honour the award as Judgment Debtor as set forth in Section 96(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company had deposited the entire award amount and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw certain amounts in and out of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company had deposited the entire award amount and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw certain amounts in and out of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that even if the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, they having suffered a decrees, they should pay the amount to the claimants and they could also recover the same from the owner as contemplated under Section 96 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the appellant and the respondents. The appellant has issued Insurance Policy which has been marked as Ex. Bl, in which they have collected premium of Rs. 240/- for 20 passengers i.e. at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. Under India Motor Tariff, if Rs. 12/- per passenger is collected, the liability to the Insurance Company is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- The appellant is therefore justified in stating that their liability is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and the said submission of the appellant is also fortified by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal and others , (I) (1999) ACC 1(SC). 5. We have already seen that the claimants are either injured persons or the legal representatives/dependants of the persons who died in the accident. The appellant Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount of award. The Motor Vehicles Act being the benevolent legislation, the claimants cannot hunt after the owner of the vehicle for the recovery of the compensation amount that in order to obviate this difficulty only, the Insurance Policy is made compulsory and also statutory for the vehicles. In this case also the owner of the vehicle had taken policy. But the premium paid appears to be less and that therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is taking the defence that their liability is limited. But however, by orders of the Court they have deposited the entire award amount into Court. In this case also the owner of the vehicle had taken policy. But the premium paid appears to be less and that therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is taking the defence that their liability is limited. But however, by orders of the Court they have deposited the entire award amount into Court. Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 states:— “ If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this Section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount of which the insurer would, apart from the provisions of this Section, be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person.” In I (1999) ACC 1 (S.C.) National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nathilal and others ) cited supra, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also taken a view that the amount paid to the claimant, if it is in excess than the liability of the Insurance Company it should not be recovered from the claimant by the Insurance Company. In our case, the amounts have been deposited and part of the amount have been ordered to the withdrawn by the claimants. 6. In view of the Section. 96(4) of M.V. Act and also the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, I feel that the claimants have to be permitted to withdraw the entire award amount which has been deposited bythe appellant. But however, the appellant is given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle as contemplated under Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. In the result all the C.M.As. are dismissed. The Respondents/Claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with accrued interest. The right of the appellant Insurance Company to be indemnified by the owner of the vehicle is hereby given to the appellant. No costs.