JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. - By this judgment, we propose to dispose of these four appeals are they arise out of the same accident and the facts. The question involved in these appeals is also the same. 2. Appellant New India Assurance Company, hereinafter referred as "Company" insured Bus with registration No. DEP 6466. This bus was used for carrying passengers for hire. The bus was owned by Harbans Lal respondent. Kulwant Singh respondent No. 6 was the Driver of the bus at the relevant time. The Insurance Policy issued by the appellate Company was in force at the relevant time. 3. On March 20, 1989, the bus carrying passengers on its way to Jawalamukhi met with an accident near Jawalamukhi in the District of Kangra. The driver could not negotiate a curve. The bus turned turtle and fell on the right side of the road. Some of the passengers died while the other received multiple injuries including grievous injuries. 4. Claim petitions arising out of this accident were filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1) Kangra at Dharamshala. The claims Tribunal made the following award by his impugned award(s), which are subject of these appeals: 1. FAO No. 145of 1991. "In view of my aforesaid discussion and finding, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,000/- in all and it is awarded against respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has already paid Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. This amount of Rs. 51,000/- includes Rs. 15,000/- which has already been paid by respondent No. 3 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount, which remains to be left to be deposited Rs. 36,000/-, within a period of one month from today with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Out of the amount of Rs. 36,000/- to be deposited by respondent No. 3, Rs. 10500/-each shall be paid to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Rs. 5000/- each to petitioners Nos. 3 to 5, who are minors. The amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall be paid to them in cash while the amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 36,000/- to be deposited by respondent No. 3, Rs. 10500/-each shall be paid to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Rs. 5000/- each to petitioners Nos. 3 to 5, who are minors. The amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall be paid to them in cash while the amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 3 to 5, who are minors, shall be invested in fixed deposit in some Nationalized Bank or Government securities for a maximum period till the minors attain majority. The said amount shall not be withdrawn by the petitioners without the permission of the Tribunal..........." 2. FAO No. 168 of 1991. "In view of my above said discussion and findings, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,000/- in all and it is awarded against respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has already paid Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. This amount of Rs. 29,000/- includes Rs. 15,000/- which has already been paid by respondent No. 3 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount, which remains to be left to be deposited Rs. 15,000/- within a period of one month from today with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Out of the amount of Rs. 14,000/- to be deposited by respondent No. 3, Rs. 2000/- each shall be paid to the petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall be paid to them in cash while the amount of the share of petitioners Nos. 3 to 5, who are minors, shall be invested in fixed deposit in some Nationalized Bank or Government securities for a maximum period till the minors attain majority. The said amount shall not be withdrawn by the petitioners without the permission of the Tribunal........." 3. FAO No. 146 of 1991. "In view of my above said discussion and finding, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the possession to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum and it is awarded against respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 has already paid Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- includes Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. 25,000/- in lump sum and it is awarded against respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 has already paid Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- includes Rs. 15,000/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioners. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- includes Rs. 15,000/- which has already been paid by the respondent No. 3 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount, which remains to deposit the awarded amount, which remains to be left to be deposited Rs. 10,000/-within a period of one month from today with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The awarded amount will be shared equally by the petitioners......" 4. FAO No. 201 of 2991 "In view of my above said discussion and finding, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 66,500/- in all and it is awarded against respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has already paid Rs. 7500/- for "no fault liability" to the petitioner. This amount of Rs. 66,500/- includes Rs. 7500/- which has already been paid by respondent No. 3 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 will deposit the awarded amount within a period of one month from today. The petitioner will also be entitled to receive interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the realization of the amount in full........" 5. It may be noticed at the out set that the owner and Driver of the Bus did not appear before the Tribunal and were ex parte. The Company contested the claim petitions and was permitted to raise the defenses other than the statutory. The case of the Company was that "its statutory and contractual liability is upto rupees 15,000/- per passenger under Section 95(2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939", hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Tribunal by impugned award(s) rejected the plea of limited liability raised by the Company and held that the Company by its insurance policy has covered larger risk than prescribed under Section 95 of the Act, is liable to indemnify the insured for its entire liability towards each passenger. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in these appeals. The Tribunal by impugned award(s) rejected the plea of limited liability raised by the Company and held that the Company by its insurance policy has covered larger risk than prescribed under Section 95 of the Act, is liable to indemnify the insured for its entire liability towards each passenger. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in these appeals. The only question, which is raised and calls for answer, is: Whether the liability of the Insurance Company, in the facts and circumstances, is limited to Rs. 15,000/- in respect of each passenger as claimed by the Company? 6. It may be noticed at the out set that the Insurance Company moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was allowed and the Company was permitted to lead additional evidence. The Insurance Company by any of additional evidence examined two witnesses S/Shri R.K. Bhatia (AW1) and Vijay Kumar Sharma (AW2) and also tendered certain documents. 7. Another application was moved by the Company for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the policy under which the fateful bus was covered by the Company w.e.f. 30.4.1988 to 29.4.1989, which policy was issued in the name of the owner of the bus, Harbans Lal. This application too was allowed. 8. We have heard Mr. K.D. Sood learned counsel for the appellant-Company, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent’s No. 1 to 5 and Mr. Bimal Gupta learned counsel for respondent No. 7(a) and also perused the record. 9. So far the question of liability of the Insurance Company in respect of passengers of a public service vehicle under Section 95(2) is concerned; the same is no longer res intergra. The question has finally been settled by the Supreme Court. 10. This question was considered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and others, 1995 ACJ 470. In that case, Insurance Policy taken out by the owner of the bus was a comprehensive policy. In the schedule of premium, additional amount of Rs. 600/- was charged in respect of 50 passengers. The claim against this amount states: "for LL to passengers as per Ednt. No. 1 M.T. 12". The Insurance Company contended that it had charged the premium at the rate of Rs. In the schedule of premium, additional amount of Rs. 600/- was charged in respect of 50 passengers. The claim against this amount states: "for LL to passengers as per Ednt. No. 1 M.T. 12". The Insurance Company contended that it had charged the premium at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger in respect of 50 passengers to cover its limited liability under Section 95 of the Act then in force. The Apex Court construing Section 95 of the Act observed that under the Act, in compliance with the requirements of Section 95, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures a person or class of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of Section 95 of the Act. The insurance policy must cover the death or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Relevant part of Section 95 at the relevant time may be reproduced for convenience: "95. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely:- (a) Xxx xxx xx (b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. (i) In respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Relying upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988(1) SCC 626. Their Lordships, held that though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under the Act or Policy, it is not obligatory to get it comprehensively insured which entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of entire amount suffered upto the estimated value of the vehicle. Nonetheless, comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this account would 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. Nonetheless, comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this account would 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 that purpose, there has to be a stipulation in the insurance agreement and premium is required to be paid on the amount of liability under taken by the insurance policy in this behalf. 12. It was found, as a fact, in that case that the premium which was paid was clearly referable to the statutory liability of rupees 15,000/- per passenger as provided under Section 95(2) (b) (ii) of the Act and there was no special contract between the appellant Company and the insured to cover unlimited liability in respect of accident to a passenger. 13. Again in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nathilal and others, 1999(1) SCC 552, the Apex Court referring to Jugal Kishore, observed that unless extra premium is paid towards unlimited liability, the liability of the insurance policy would be covered only under subsection (2) of Section 95 of the Act. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, the policy taken by the insured is not act policy and is contract policy. A perusal of the copy of the policy Exhibit R1, on which the companies rely and which is similar to the copy produced as AW2/T in additional evidence shows that against the public liability risk, the following premium was paid by the insured. B. Liability to Public Risk : Add: for L.L. to passengers as per END IMT. 13 Rs. 240.00 Limit per passenger (Maximum Rs.... as per M.V. Act, 1939) Rs. 588.00 Add: for L.L. to paid Driver and/or cleaner as per END IMT. 16 Rs. 8.00 Add: for increased T.P. Limits Section II 1(i) T.P. Limits, Section II 1(i) in limited Section II 1(ii) Rs. 75.00 15. The contention of Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the Company is that under the Indian Motor Traffis (Schedule of rates) copy of which is placed on record as Exhibit AW2/E effective from 1.2.1982, the risk liability on account of an accident of the passengers is covered to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger if the premium for that purpose is paid at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. In the present case, submit Mr. 15,000/- per passenger if the premium for that purpose is paid at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. In the present case, submit Mr. Sood, the vehicle was meant to carry 49 passengers and a Driver, therefore, the premium calculated for 49 passengers at rupees 12/- per passenger comes to rupees 588/- and in these circumstances, the liability of the insurance policy is limited to rupees 15,000/- per passenger. 16. We notice that the insurance policy issued by the Company to the insured Harbans Lai is subject to endorsements numbers 13, 16, 21, 23 and 26. 17. It is curious, even the Administrative Officer of the Company, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma (AW2) admitted that the insurance policy was subject to IMT 13, 16, 21, 23 and 26 but the copy of the policy produced as additional evidence by the Company in terms of Exhibit AW2/D does not contain IMT 13, 16, 21, 23 and 26 under which endorsements passenger risk is subjected. However, IMT 13 relevant for our purpose is available on record with Policy Exhibit R1 in the file of the Tribunal. It reads:- "I.M.T. 10. Legal liability to passengers excluding liability for accidents to employees of the insured arising out of and in the course of their employment. In consideration of an additional premium as mentioned in the schedule and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 11-1 (c) but subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy the company will indemnify the insured against liability at law for compensation (including Law Costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under Section 11-1 (b) being carried in our upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. As mentioned in the schedule in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any other person to Rs. As mentioned in the schedule in respect of any number of claims in connection with the Motor Vehicle arising out of one cause. As mentioned in the schedule in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any other person to Rs. As mentioned in the schedule in respect of any number of claims in connection with the Motor Vehicle arising out of one cause. Provided always that in the event of an accident occurring whilst the Motor Vehicle is carrying more than the number of persons mentioned in the schedule hereto as being the licensed carrying capacity of that vehicle in addition to the conductor if any then the insured shall repay to the Company a ratable proportion of the total amount which would be payable by the Company by reason of this endorsement if not more than the said number of persons were carried in the Motor Vehicle. Provided further that in computing the number of persons for the purpose of the endorsement any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any children in arms not exceeding three years of age will be disregarded. Provided also that the provisions of condition 3 of the police are also applicable to a claim of series of claims under this endorsement. Provided further that in the event of the policy being cancelled at the request of the insured, no refund of premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy. lMT 16 legal liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintenance and/or loading and/or unloading of Motor Vehicles." 18. it may be noticed that in consideration of the additional premium mentioned in the Schedule, the Company has undertaken to indemnity the insured against any liability at law for compensation, including law cost of any claimant for death or of bodily injury to any passengers other than a person excluded under Section 2(i)-l (b) of the Act. Such liability indeed is limited to extent as mentioned in the Schedule of premium in the policy. The reading of the schedule of the policy, as mentioned earlier, shows that two premiums have been charged under the head of "Liability to Public Risk" one is rupees 240/-as per END. IMT 13 and the other is rupees 588 covering, according to the learned counsel for the Company, statutory liability. The reading of the schedule of the policy, as mentioned earlier, shows that two premiums have been charged under the head of "Liability to Public Risk" one is rupees 240/-as per END. IMT 13 and the other is rupees 588 covering, according to the learned counsel for the Company, statutory liability. Now the column in the schedule, which limits the liability per passenger on charge of extra premium, is left blank. In this fact situation, the Company having charged extra premium cannot be heard to say that its liability to the passengers is to the extent of statutory liability alone. It is also noticed that a premium of Rs. 2671/- after special discount and deduction of no claim bonus was paid to the company by the insured. 19. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company (AW2) stated that rupees 240/- has been charged for covering third party risk and rupees 588/- covers the passengers liability at the rate of rupees 12/- per passenger and rupees 75/- is charged to cover the risk of third party liability in respect of damage to the property. The passengers in a vehicle evidently would be third party for the purpose of insurance policy. This apart, India Motor Tariffs Schedule of Rates (Exhibit AW2/E), on which the Company heavily rely, at page 4, under which premium for liability to passengers as per Endst. IMT 13 of rupees 240/- and 588 has been charged, defines liability to the public as follows:- "Indemnity against legal liability for claims by the public in respect of accidental personal injuries or damage to property caused by the insured vehicle." 20. Thus, as the premium risk in respect of passengers in the Bus was charged by the Insurance Company under head "Liability to public risk" in the policy, therefore, it is evident that extra premium has been paid by the insured to cover the risk of the passengers of the bus in excess of statutory liability. In this view of the matter too, it is evident| that extra premium has been paid by the insured to cover risk to the passengers other than the statutory liability. In this view of the matter too, it is evident| that extra premium has been paid by the insured to cover risk to the passengers other than the statutory liability. As the policy taken by the insured is contract policy and not act policy, therefore, in consideration of the extra premium charged, the Company is liable to indemnify the insured not to the extent of statutory liability alone but the liability extends to the limit reflected in the Schedule of policy. As already observed, the necessary columns limiting the liability per passenger in consideration of the premium paid is left blank. In these circumstances, the liability of the Company towards passengers risk cannot be limited to rupees 15,000/- as contended by Mr. Sood. 21. In FAO No. 145 of 1991, the liability imposed on the Insurance Company is rupees.51,000/- which includes no fault liability of rupees 15,000/-. In FAO No. 146 of 1991, the insurance Company has been saddled with the liability of rupees 25,000/- including no fault liability, whereas, in FAO No. 168 of 1991, the total liability of the Insurance Company is held to be rupees 29,000/- including no fault liability. The liability of the Company in FAO No. 201 of 1991 likewise is determined at rupees 66,500/- including no fault liability. We see no reason to reduce the liability of the Company in respect of all these claims when the schedule of the policy does not indicate any limit of Passenger(s) liability. 22. No other point was urged before us. 23. In result, all the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.