Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Admittedly, in motor accident on 24.6.1989, one Gouri Goswami lost his life. He was a bona fide passenger on the ill-fated bus, bearing registration no. BHK-8919, which met an accident near village Roska- Kosinagarh Purnea-Saharsa Road. 2. M.V.CIaim Case No.46 of 1989 was filed by widow and minor children of deceased Gouri Goswami, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The Tribunal on the basis of materials on record found that accident took place for negligence and fault of driver of the bus and total amount of Rs. 75200/- was assessed, as compensation under the Act, to be paid to the claimants. 4. Owner of the vehicle appeared in the claim case and filed written statement. However, thereafter he did not contest the case. 5. The Insurance Company also appeared and filed written statement. In paragraph 11 of the written statement it was specifically pleaded that as per terms of Insurance Policy, Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owners liability in the present case limited to Rs. 15000/- only. 6. In the Tribunal, a copy of Insurance Policy was brought on record. A perusal of the policy reveals that it was comprehensive and an additional payment of Rs. 1196.00 in respect of passengers was made to cover Insurers limited liability under Section 95 of the Act, which was then in force. 7. Section 95 forms part of Chapter- VIII of the Act, which deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Under Section 95(1) (b) (ii) of the Act the Insurance policy must cover 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. 8. In National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Jugal Kishore and others ( AIR 1988 SC 719 ) it was held that comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, does not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. For this purpose 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 liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf. 9. In the present case, since separate premium was paid for the passengers, it shows that there was special contract to cover limited liability in respect of passengers between the Insurance Company and the appellant (owner of the vehicle). 10. There was no special contract between the appellant and respondent no. 5 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of any such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the appellant in any manner. As pointed out in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Jugal Kishore and others (supra) comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim re-imbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered to the estimated value of the vehicle. It does not mean that limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. 11. In such circumstance, the Tribunal rightly held that Insurance Company was liable to indemnify only Rs. 15000/- out of the total amount of award and the balance amount was payable by the owner of the vehicle. 12. l find no reason to interfere with the impugned order/award. This appeal is dismissed, but without costs.