Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The insure has come up with this appeal impugning the award in O.P.(Mv) 1210/87 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. A vehicle owned by the Cochin port Trust met with an accident and one Iqbal succumbed to injuries. Respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal approached the Tribunal. Though claimants had claimed a larger amount they limited their claim to Rs.4 Lakhs. The Tribunal found that the deceased had also contributed his part for the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 25%. The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- and deducted 25% there from and awarded a sum of Rs.3,99,000/-/ This award is under challenge at the instance of the insurer. 2. There contentions are urged; i) there is limit of liability in terms of policy Ext. B4 under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, ii) it is a private carrier as defined in terms of section 2 (22) of the Motor vehicles Act and iii) the compensation calculated was in excess of the claim which was limited to Rs.4 Lakhs. 3.We will examine the second contention, as an answer thereto may perhaps relieve us from considering the contention as to the limit of liability, because, in respect of a private vehicle, it is admitted by the appellant that there is no limit of liability. Section 2 (22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as follows: - "Private carrier" means an owner of a transport vehicle other than a public carrier who uses that vehicle solely for the carriage of goods which are his properly or the carriage of which is necessary for the purpose of his business not being a business of providing transport, or who uses the vehicle for any of the purpose specified in sub section (2) of section 12- Thus this is a definition of an undertaking. It is not one to define a type of vehicle. On the other hand the policy Ext.B4 specifically indicates that it is a standard 20 make omini bus. Necessarily it cannot be a goods vehicle as indicated in the definition of private carrier. Omni bus, on the other hand is separately defined under Section 2(18A) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. Necessarily it cannot be a goods vehicle as indicated in the definition of private carrier. Omni bus, on the other hand is separately defined under Section 2(18A) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. Ext.B5 is the proposal submitted by the officer of the port Trust for insurance purpose and it indicates that the vehicle in question is an omni bus with a saloon type body intended to carry 12 persons including driver. In the proposal form there is a query in item 5 as follows: "What class of permit has been issued in respect of the vehicle by the registration authorities? (e.g. public carrier, private carrier)." This being a vehicle of the port Trust cannot be a public carrier to mean to carry members of public. It is in that respect the insured indicated in the policy that it is a private carrier and it had been carried over to the policy that it shall be used as a private carrier. It is not with reference to the definition indicated as contained Is section 2 (22). The insured does not have a case that this vehicle is used to take passengers. If the Cochin Port Trust has purchased a car and insured with the appellant; necessarily it would have been only a private vehicle. Same is the case with respect to the vehicle insured as per Ext.B4. Therefore, it is only a private vehicle - omni bus - intending for carrying employees or security staff of the Cochin Port Trust. Therefore, it will not come within the definition of a public vehicle to attract the limit of liability. Consequently appellant cannot contend that there is limitation clause in the policy in question. Naturally the insurer will be liable to pay whatever compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. In the light of the aforesaid finding, there is no reason at all to examine the contention raised with reference to Section 95(2) of the Act. 5. This leads us to the third contention urged. Of course the Tribunal has found that the claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4, 80,000/-. Tribunal further found that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 25% to contribute to the accident and therefore 25% of the compensation computed was deducted and the amount finally awarded is Rs.3, 99,000/-. Of course the Tribunal has found that the claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4, 80,000/-. Tribunal further found that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 25% to contribute to the accident and therefore 25% of the compensation computed was deducted and the amount finally awarded is Rs.3, 99,000/-. It is contended that the deduction towards contributory negligence shall be from out of the maximum claim urged in the petition. In this case the total claim was limited to Rs.4, 00,000/-. Therefore Tribunal could not have assessed any compensation in excess of Rs. 4 lakhs. 6. We are unable to accept this contention. The claimants were claiming the amount entitled to them by reason of the liability sustained by them. There was a contention regarding the contributory negligence which was proved by the respondent. In such circumstances Tribunal could compute the total compensation payable taking into account the extent of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the final award shall not exceed the total claim, which is limited to Rs. 4 lakhs in the claim petition. Tribunal is not restricted to compute the total compensation only to the extent of the claim and then deduct there form the amount towards contributory negligence. Whatever finally awarded shall not exceed the total claim urged or limited as the case may be. In this case the final award amount comes only to Rs.3, 99,000/- which is less than the limited claim of Rs.4, 00,000/-. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no reason to interfere. Dismissed.