JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally on appeal itself. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a limited liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in view of the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and, therefore, the appellant-Company is not liable to make payment of more than Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a specific clause even in the insurance policy under the heading Avoidance of certain terms and Right to recovery' and, therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Amrit Lal Sood & Anr. v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thanpar & Ors., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1433 : 1998 (2) T.A.C. 97 , and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu & Ors., 2000 AIR S.C.W. 4535 : 2001 (1) T.A.C. 656. 4. When there is an avoidance clause in the insurance policy also itself and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the provision of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Insurance Company is liable to make payment of the entire amount and whether the Insurance Company is entitled to claim this amount from the owner is also left open in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1433 as given in para No. 14 of the above judgment. 5. Therefore, there is no force in this appeal and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The appellant is directed to make payment of the rest of the amount as awarded by the Tribunal within two months from today.Appeal dismissed. *******