Judgment :- These appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.Nos.422, 421, 419, 420 and 423 of 1995 respectively, disposed of by a common order. The Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court questioning the liability. 2. The claim relates to an accident which is alleged to have taken place on 23.5.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. The claimants in O.P.Nos.420, 422 and 423 of 1995 along with one Balaji and Dhanalakshmi were travelling in an auto bearing registration No.TN.01-T.1085. The driver of the auto-rickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, according to the claimants, and dashed against the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation. Balaji and Dhanalakshmi died due to the accident while others sustained grievous injuries. M.C.O.P.Nos.419 and 421 of 1995 were filed by the legal representatives of Balaji and Dhanalakshmi. Claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.419 to 423 of 1995 have claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.75,000/-, 2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. 3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. In their counter, the Insurance Company contended that there was no intimation or information from the owner of the vehicle about the accident. The claimants should also establish that the vehicle was validly insured with them. Further there was overloading and the auto-rickshaw carried more than the permitted number of passengers and hence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The claimants ought to have impleaded the State Transport Corporation also as their vehicle was involved in the accident. The Insurance Company also pleaded that a total number of seven persons had travelled in the auto-rickshaw while the maximum limit for guaranteed passengers for whom the Insurance cover had been done was only three persons and hence the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the victims and the driver of the auto-rickshaw was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in each of the claim petitions. Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance Company. There is no appeal by the claimants and the Insurance Company had filed this appeal only on the issue of liability to pay compensation and hence it is not necessary to deal with the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance Company. There is no appeal by the claimants and the Insurance Company had filed this appeal only on the issue of liability to pay compensation and hence it is not necessary to deal with the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The only issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay compensation in a case where the owner/driver had violated the conditions of Insurance policy and had transported number of persons than the permitted maximum number of three persons. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that in terms of the policy the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to three persons and cannot be required to pay for all the five claimants. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K.R.SIVAGAMI v.. MAHABOOB NISA BI (1981 A.C.J., 399) for the proposition that the Insurance Company is liable to pay only to the extent of its liability and not more in the event of the conditions of the policy being violated. 6. Reference is also made to the judgment of the S.S.Subramani,J. in BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. MURUGESH & OTHERS (1998 (1) L.W.59). Reliance is placed on the observation that when the vehicle was carrying more persons than permitted in terms of the policy, compensation has to be restricted only to six persons as specified in the policy. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, contends that in a third party claim, the claimant is really not concerned about the terms of the policy. The entitlement of the third party cannot be dependent on the contract between the insurer and the insured. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. While considering the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company in case of claim by third parties, where there is violation of the terms of the policy, the Supreme Court appears to have interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as different from the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 9. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. STAPAL SINGH (2000 (I) C.T.C. 370) the question arose as to whether in respect of the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a truck, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to compensate. 9. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. STAPAL SINGH (2000 (I) C.T.C. 370) the question arose as to whether in respect of the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a truck, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to compensate. The Supreme Court held that while under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company was not liable, under the provisions of the New 1988 Act there was no such exclusion of liability and therefore, in cases arising under the New Act, the Insurance Company will be liable. 10. In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAMLA (2001 A.C.J., 843) the Supreme Court dealt with a case of third party claim where the Insurance Company raised a plea of violations of the terms of the policy. That case also arose under the 1988 Act and the Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company was liable irrespective of the fact that there was any breach of the conditions of the policy. However, it was held that the Insurance Company can recover from the insured the amounts so paid to the third parties, if as per the policy conditions, the insurer had no liability to pay the compensation. 11. Therefore, it has to follow that in this case also the Insurance Company cannot disclaim the liability to pay compensation to the third parties. However, considering the terms of the policy filed as Ex.R.1 and that the owner of the vehicle had been made a party to the proceedings and that he has not disputed the negligence as well as the stand of the Insurance Company that the conditions of the policy had been violated, I am inclined to hold that the vehicle had been operated by violating the conditions of the policy. Consequently, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amounts from the owner of the vehicle. 12. In the result, all the above appeals are dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs.