Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar for the appellant, and Mr. Binod Kumar Singh for respondent nos.1 and 2 (the claimants). None has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 (the owners of the bus). The appeal is directed against the award dated 18.9.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No.40 of 1984 (Shashi Kant Jha and another vs. Ganesh Prasad Singh and others), whereby the insurance company and the bus owner have been held liable to pay jointly and severally the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.90,000/-with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. 2. Passenger bus bearing registration no. D.H.F.-1343 carrying Sunil Kumar Jha, student of class IX, aged about 14 years, and the son of respondent nos.1 and 2 herein had met with an accident and had plunged into a river in the afternoon of 19.9.1984 as a result of which the said Sunil Kumar Jha along with other passengers were done to death. The claimants filed claim application under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the learned Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur. On a consideration of the materials on record and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving. The driver who was driving the vehicle at uncontrolled speed in spite of protests of the passengers. He allowed the claim application by the impugned judgment, whereby he has held that the claimants (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are entitled to a total compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment, after adjustment of amount of interim compensation paid during the pendency of the claim application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits in support of the appeal that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered and apportioned the liability of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. In his submissions, the insurance company under the old Act is liable to a maximum of 15,000/- in terms of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the 1939 Act, and the balance shall have to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 4. In his submissions, the insurance company under the old Act is liable to a maximum of 15,000/- in terms of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the 1939 Act, and the balance shall have to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 (the claimants) submits that law is well settled by decisions of this Court that in cases where the insurance company has not placed on record the insurance policy, then the insurance company is liable to pay the entire of the decretal amount. He relies on the following reported judgments : (i) 1992 (1) P.L.J.R. page 212 para 33 (New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Chinta Devi and others); (ii) 1998 (2) P.L.J.R. page 128 para 10 (United Insurance Company Limited vs. Kedar Nath Bhagat and others); (iii) 1999 (2) P.L.J.R. page 57 para 7 (Anju Devi Choudhary and others vs. United India insurance Company Limited and others). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits in reply that the insurance company has placed on record the insurance policy and has been marked Exhibit-A. He places before me a certified copy of the list of exhibits in proof thereof. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 95 (2) (b)(ii) of the Old Act lays down that in a case where offending vehicle is one in which passengers were being carried for hire or reward, then the policy of insurance shall cover the liability of the insurance company in respect of any one accident up to the limit of Rs. 15,000/- for each individual passenger. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (the claimants) is not right in his submission that the insurance company has not placed on record the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before me a certified copy of exhibit list which shows that the insurance policy of bus bearing registration No. B.H.E. 1343 has been marked Exhibit-A. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid reported judgments relied on by learned counsel for respondent nos. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before me a certified copy of exhibit list which shows that the insurance policy of bus bearing registration No. B.H.E. 1343 has been marked Exhibit-A. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid reported judgments relied on by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (the claimants) do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which lay down to the effect that in a case under 1939 Act the insurance company shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation rather than the limited amount of liability indicated in section 95(2) of the Act in cases where it fails to produce the insurance policy. As stated hereinabove, the insurance company did produce the insurance policy which has been marked Exhibit-A. In that view of the matter, the liability of the insurance company would be limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- in terms of section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act with interest. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 (owners of the vehicle) shall pay the balance of the decretal amount to the claimants. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner.