JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. The respondent, Smt. Kalindibai, while proceeding towards Risali Sector on a motorcycle with her daughter and son, Jeevanlal Verma, faced an accident as a passenger bus bearing registration No. MKT-1172 dashed against the motorcycle. Because of the aforesaid accident Kalindibai sustained injuries. She put forth a claim to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- by filing claim case No. 17/88 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal passed the award for a sum of Rs. 81,000/- and restricted the liability of the insurance company, the appellant herein, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal the claimant preferred M. A. No. 594/91. 2. The learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment expressed the view as under : 9. Misc. Appeal No. 594/91 is by the owner and the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri B. R. Ghosh made only one submission regarding the fastening of the liability by the Claims Tribunal as to the compensation awarded. He relied on certificate of Insurance No. 6/00463/87 (Ex. P/8) which is an undisputed document. He submitted that the Insured Estimated value as shown in the last column is of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the insurer can escape from the liability if the amount exceeds the amount of insured estimated value. In the present case, the amount as has been awarded does not increase the insured estimated value and as such the apportionment of the liability by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company Shri H. B. Agrawal did not dispute the document, Ex. P/8, and also did not dispute the factum that the insured estimated value of the bus was Rs. 2,50,000/- . He has also not disputed that during the period when the accident took place, the bus was not insured. In fact, he though resisted the claim of the Learned Counsel for the appellant but not seriously as he was not getting the aid of law in his favour owing to the fixation of insured estimated value at Rs. 2,50,000/- . He has also not disputed that during the period when the accident took place, the bus was not insured. In fact, he though resisted the claim of the Learned Counsel for the appellant but not seriously as he was not getting the aid of law in his favour owing to the fixation of insured estimated value at Rs. 2,50,000/- . In view of this, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the liability of the amount awarded under the impugned award is fastened with the insurance company." Being of the aforesaid view he allowed the appeal, unsettled the direction of the Tribunal and saddled the entire liability on the insurer. 3. Mr. S. K. Agrawal, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer has made a singular submission that at the time of accident the liability of a passenger vehicle in respect of third party was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and when there was a limited liability, the whole liability could not have been mulcted on the insurer on the foundation that the estimated value shown in the last column was Rs. 2,50,000/- . It is contended by him that the statutory limitation can be ignored if the insured has paid more premium to enter into a special contract beyond statutory limit to cover certain sphere but in the present case nothing has been brought to show that extra premium had been paid to attract the concept of special liability beyond the statutory limit. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. To appreciate the contention raised at the Bar, it is appropriate to reproduce section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the provisions of the said Act were operating in the field of accident. It reads as under : 95. xx xx xx (1) XX XX XX (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely : (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of [one lakh and fifty thousand rupees] in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. (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 passengers, - a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger; (c) save as provided in clause (d), where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred; (d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit of rupees [six thousand] in all the respect of damage to any property of a third party.] 6. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. C. M. Jaya and others, 2002 (1) MPU (S.C.) 578 : AIR 2002 SC 278 it has been held while dealing with the concept of limited liability under section 95(2) of the 1939 Act, the Apex Court has ruled thus : In the case of Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under section 95(2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount. The deceased was riding the pillion seat of a two-wheeler when it met with a truck insured by the appellant-Insurance Company by comprehensive insurance policy. It is not the case that any additional or higher premium was paid to cover unlimited or higher liability that the statutory liability. 7. In the case at hand there is no material that any extra or special premium was paid to attract the liability of the Insurance Company beyond the statutory limit. Reasons ascribed by the learned Single Judge, we are afraid, are not acceptable inasmuch as the matter hinges on premium and not at the estimated value. 7. In the case at hand there is no material that any extra or special premium was paid to attract the liability of the Insurance Company beyond the statutory limit. Reasons ascribed by the learned Single Judge, we are afraid, are not acceptable inasmuch as the matter hinges on premium and not at the estimated value. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to refer a passage from the decision rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Bai and others, AIR 1995 SC 1113 wherein two Judge Bench of the Apex Court has expressed the view as under : Where there was no special contract between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger, and the premium which was paid by the owner was at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger and it was clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it was stated in the tariff of insurance company that in respect of "legal Liability for Accidents to Passengers" if the limit of liability for any one passenger is fifteen thousand rupees, the rate of annual premium per passenger is Rs. 50/- it was held that the policy covered only the statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. In such a case, the mere fact that the insurance policy was a comprehensive policy would be irrelevant because comprehensive policy only entitled the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle. It does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. For this purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which was absent in the present case. 8. Appreciating the factual score on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncements of law, we are of the considered view the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge runs counter to the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court and hence, we have no other option, but to set it aside and accordingly, we do so. Needless to emphasise, the claimant would be entitled to recover the amount as directed by the Tribunal from the owner. Needless to emphasise, the claimant would be entitled to recover the amount as directed by the Tribunal from the owner. In the meantime, if the Insurance Company has deposited the amount in excess of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest, it would be open to the insurer to recover the same in the same proceeding as if it is an execution proceeding. Be it noted, we have issued this direction as Mr. Agrawal has submitted that there might be possibility of depositing of the amount. This is not to be treated as a direction in ordinary course of things. 9. The appeal is allowed with the direction contained above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.