Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the 1st Additional Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Tribunal in M.V. claim case No. 47 of 1988. The United lndia Insurance Compay branch office Motijhil, Muzaffarpur, is the appellant before this court. The respondents are the persons who were granted compensation amount for the death of Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh. 2. Both sides (appellant and the respondents) of this appeal were heard. 3. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants who were the widow of late Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh, minor sons and daughter and his father. The other respondents were the owners and driver of the concerned vehicles which caused the accident. 4. The appellant has simply avered in the memo of appeal that its liability is limited to the statutory amount of Rs. 15,000/- because the deceased was a passenger of the concerned vehicle which was insured,with the appellant company, Under section 95(2)(b)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in case of risk, to the passengers, the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only was fixed by the statute. So, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to this statutory amount. The award beyond this amount granted by the Tribunal should have been levied against the owner of the vehicle and it was he who should have been directed by the Tribunal to pay the rest of the amount of the compensation money. So, this appeal is limited to this extent. 5. The respondents, on the other hand, including the claimants and the owner submitted that as the Insurance Company failed to file the copy of the Insurance Policy learned Tribunal had rightly directed the appellant to pay the entire compensation amount even beyond the statutory amount fixed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondents relied on a decision passed by this High Court as reported in the year 1998 PLJR Vol. 2 page 128 and the same reported in the year 1997 PLJR vol. 2 page 391. However, the appellants lawyer relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in ACC 1995 page 667. So far the decisions of the Patna High Court (supra), the decisions, were handed down by the learned Single Judges. 2 page 128 and the same reported in the year 1997 PLJR vol. 2 page 391. However, the appellants lawyer relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in ACC 1995 page 667. So far the decisions of the Patna High Court (supra), the decisions, were handed down by the learned Single Judges. So far the decision referred to by the appellants lawyer, it was a decision of the Supreme Court and it appears on perusal of the judgment that his Lordship Mr. A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., His Lordship Mr. S.P.Bharucha and His Lordship Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar were the judges who handed down this judgment. In this decision, it was mentioned that even if the insurance policy is comprehensive unless there is separate agreement which covered unlimited liability in respect of an accident involving a passenger, no compensation beyond the statutory limit can be grantad against the insurance company. However, this has also been mentioned in this very judgment (supra) that for each passenger for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- premium of Rs. 12/- is to be paid per passenger and for an amount of Rs. 20, 000/- a premium of Rs. 23/- for each passenger per annum has to be paid. In respect of unlimited liability the premium payable per passenger was Rs. 60/-. So, the question in the instant case was as to what was the premium paid for in the instant case for risk to each passenger. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it has been clearly mentioned that for unlimited liability Rs. 50/- was the premium to be paid. So, the Insurance policy had, of course, to be filed by the appellant-company in order to show that the policy covered only a limited liability of Rs. 15,000/-. Admittedly, original copy of the insurance policy was expected to be in possession of the owner, but the carbon copy of the same must be in possession of the insurance company. The Tribunal had noted the fact that the insurance company did not file the carbon copy, rather it filed certified copy of the policy which was not to be accepted. 6. However, I find that on the lower court record there was a photostat certified copy of the insurance policy which was exhibited (Ext.B) and the cover note was also exhibited as Ext. 6. However, I find that on the lower court record there was a photostat certified copy of the insurance policy which was exhibited (Ext.B) and the cover note was also exhibited as Ext. B/1.When the photostat copy was exhibited, it is not understandable how the Tribunal stated that policy was not filed-by the Insurance company. The policy (Ext.B) indicated that 12 passengers and two crew of the Bus were insured. The premium paid for passengers was Rs. 144/- that means, premium for passengers was paid at the rate of Rs. "12/- per passenger. So, the liability of the Insurance company was clearly a limited one as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 . When the court admitted the certified copy of the Insurance policy in evidence, it was wrong on the part of it to hold that the Company did not file the Insurance policy. The owner of the vehicle contested the case in the lower court and it also contested the appeal here. If the owner took the plea that liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited, in that case it should have filed the original copy which it failed to do. Ext. B does not contain any premium paid against the column of increased premium for unlimited liability etc. The two cases referred to by the respondents were based on the non-filing of the insurance policy by the Company. 7. On the above facts, I am constrained to hold that the liability of the company was limited to Rs. 15,000/- only. 8. Hence, it is apparent that the order of the tribunal directing the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the entire compensation money was vitiated by legal error. Hence, this order cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is directed that the amount of compensation, which was fixed at Rs. 64,000/-, after payment of the interim compensation which was Rs. 17,800/- out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 81,000/-, if the company had already paid Rs. 15,000/- along with the interest, if any, on the above amount, the Company is not liable to pay any further amount to (he claimants. If, however, it has not paid the amount liable to be paid by it, it shall pay the same to the claimants. The rest of the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- along with the interest, if any, on the above amount, the Company is not liable to pay any further amount to (he claimants. If, however, it has not paid the amount liable to be paid by it, it shall pay the same to the claimants. The rest of the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 64,000/- shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle, respondent no. 4.