Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vellore, in M.C.O.P. 362 of 1983. The second respondent in the claim petition is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. According to the claimant, the wife of the deceased Ramasamy, the accident occurred on 28.7.1982 at 9.30 a.m. at Pudupatti Village on the Highways Road between Arcot and Cheyyar. The deceased was travelling in the said bus. The accident took place as a result of the rash and negligence driving by the driver of the bus without conforming to the traffic regulations. As a result of the accident the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was doing vegetable business and he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. He was only the protector of the claimant. A total sum of Rs. 60,000/- was claimed by the claimant. 3. In the counter filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company, the manner of the accident as stated in the Claim Petition was denied. The vehicle was driven by a person who was holding a valid driving licence. The respondents also deny the amount as claimed by the claimant. 4. On a consideration of the said pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased Ramasamy was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondents vehicle. The Tribunal fixed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation payable to the claimant and that both the respondents had jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. Hence the present appeal by the Insurance Company. 5. With reference to the factum of the accident, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no acceptable evidence on the side of the claimant to establish any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. I have perused the evidence as well as the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that while the respondents vehicle was trying to negotiate a bullock cart, the vehicle was driven carelessly. Therefore, there is no basis for interfering with the finding rendered by the Tribunal as regards negligence. 6. With reference to the compensation also, the Tribunal after analysing the evidence has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, there is no basis for interfering with the finding rendered by the Tribunal as regards negligence. 6. With reference to the compensation also, the Tribunal after analysing the evidence has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 500/- per month. On the basis of-the fixation of the said amount as monthly earning, and his age being only 23 years, the total amount of Rs. 50,000/- granted as compensation cannot be stated to be excessive so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, disputes the fixation of joint and several liability on the Insurance Company for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded as compensation. According to her in as much as the deceased is a passenger, the Insurance company was subject to a limited liability of Rs. 5,000/- for each passenger and Rs. 75,000/- in case where the vehicle was registered to carry more than 30 and not more than 60 passengers, in accordance with Section 95(1)(b) and 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. She would also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1998-3-L.W. 598 ( M/s Road Transport Co. v. Bhah Singh & another ). 8. Counsel for the first respondent does not seriously dispute the legal position as referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court. But he would contend that the Insurance Company had taken a stand that the vehicle was not insured with them and that therefore, it was not open to the Insurance Company to raise the plea that they are not liable to pay any compensation in excess of Rs. 5,000/-. I am unable to agree with the contention so raised by the counsel for the first respondent. The owner of the vehicle herself has filed Ex. R.2 being a copy of the insurance policy. The fact that the insurance company took a stand in the counter that there was no information with regard to the accident from the insurer and that therefore, the insurance company was constrained to take a plea that the vehicle was not insured with them, until the contrary was proved, cannot be taken as estoppel against the insurance company, to substantiate the limits of their liability. When the Insurance Policy itself is before the Court, the Court cannot be asked to ignore the existence of the Insurance policy merely because the Insurance Company had taken the stand that there was no proof of the vehicle having been insured with them. 9. Therefore, applying the ruling of the Supreme Court as stated above, it has to follow that the liability of the Insurance Company cannot exceed more than Rs. 5,000/-. 10. Learned counsel for the first respondent points out that at any rate as per the directions of this Court in the interim petition for stay, the entire amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company and the claimant had withdrawn half of the amount so deposited, namely, 25,000/- and that there may not be any direction to the claimant to return the amount appropriated by the claimant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the first respondent would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (1) A.C.C. 1 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nathilal ). In that case, under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the amount paid to the claimant, pursuant to the order of the Court, shall not be recovered from the claimant, but the appellant can recover that amount from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the first respondent would also state that following the said judgment this Court has been passing similar orders in similar appeals where the claimants had withdrawn the amounts pursuant to the directions of the Court. Therefore, I agree that the claimant is entitled to retain the sum of Rs. 25,000/-collected from the deposit made by the Insurance Company. He is entitled to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/-. It is also made clear that the insurance company is entitled to proceed against the owner for the recovery of the balance amount over and above the maximum liability of Rs. 5,000/- attributable against the Insurance Company. 11. In a further attempt to claim the entire amount from the Insurance Company, learned Counsel for the claimant refers to Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 96 of the said Act deals with the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. 5,000/- attributable against the Insurance Company. 11. In a further attempt to claim the entire amount from the Insurance Company, learned Counsel for the claimant refers to Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 96 of the said Act deals with the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Sub-section (4) stipulates that if the amount which an insurer becomes liable under the Section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy, exceeds the amount for 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. By referring to the said provision, learned counsel for the first respondent attempts to submit that notwithstanding Section 95 as interpreted by the Supreme Court, obligation on the part of the insurer to pay the entire amount would continue to subsist and that the Insurance Company was at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle over and above the maximum limit of liability. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the first respondent. Section 96 deals only with the obligation of the insurer to satisfy the judgments rendered against persons who had insured. The said provision can apply only to claims which have become final and the subsisting judgment would be enforceable against the Insurance Company. In the present case, the judgment has not become final. In as much as an appeal has been filed and is being disposed of by a competent appellate Court, it is open to the Insurance Company to raise the defence as regards its maximum liability. Therefore, I hold that Section 96(4) will not apply to a case where Insurance Company has filed an appeal. 12. Therefore, in the result, the above appeal is allowed partly fixing the maximum liability on the appellant/Insurance company only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. However, the claimant is entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 25,000/- recovered by him from and out of the deposit made by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is entitled to proceed against the owner to recover the balance amount and the owner would be liable to pay the balance of the total compensation to the claimant. No costs.