( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02-05-1987 passed by the learned Member, Motor accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident claim No. 3 of 1985, whereby the liability of the Insurance Company has been restricted only to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 2 ) MR. Jagtap, learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No. 1 is owner of motor vehicle i. e. a jeep involved in the accident. The jeep was duly insured with respondent No. 6 - United India Insurance company Ltd. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 07-09-1984 and savitribai Premchandani who was the pillion rider on Luna moped died in the said accident which was arising out of the jeep bearing no. MXH-4199 which had given dash to Luna. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the jeep involved in the accident was comprehensively insured with respondent- insurance company, the Tribunal has committed an error in restricting the liability of the insurance company to the tune of rs. 50,000/ -. In support of this submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others - (2004)2 supreme Court Cases 370 : [2004 (5) ALL mr (S. C.) 331]. ( 3 ) MR. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company contended that the liability of the insurer is limited as indicated in section 95 of the Motor vehicles Act and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in restricting the liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in absence of any specific agreement between the insurer and the owner of the vehicle. ( 4 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. In National insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others [2004 (5) ALL MR (S. C.) 331] (cited supra) it has been observed in paras 6 and 7 as under :"the liability of the insurer is limited as indicated in Section 95 of the Act. But it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and for the insurer to accept higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and for the insurer to accept higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy, and proof of payment of additional premium, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. A three Judge Bench of this Court in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Bai (1995)2 SCC 539 in para 7 held as follows: (i) a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third- party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit; (ii) that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an "act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured; and (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to third-party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurers liability unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. In case of appellant insurer not taking any higher liability by accepting higher premium, the liability is neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section 95 (2) of the Act. Even if a vehicle is the subject matter of comprehensive insurance and a higher premium is paid on that score, limits of the liability with regard to third party risk do not become unlimited or higher beyond the statutory liability fixed. For this purpose, a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the insured and the insurer and separate premium has to be paid in respect of additional amount of liability undertaken by the insurer in that regard. This position was highlighted by this Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore - (1988)1 SCC 626 . In New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. C. M. Jaya - (2002)2 SCC 278 a Constitution Bench approved the view taken in Shati Bai and Jugal Kishore. This position was highlighted by this Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore - (1988)1 SCC 626 . In New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. C. M. Jaya - (2002)2 SCC 278 a Constitution Bench approved the view taken in Shati Bai and Jugal Kishore. It was held that in case of the insurer not taking any higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to 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 of compensation awarded. " ( 5 ) THUS, it is settled law that in case, if the insurer is not taking any higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded. However, if the insured has taken the higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to the third party, the insurer would be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. In the present case, perusal of the insurance policy would reveal that it is not the "act only" policy. It is comprehensive insurance policy, however the premium which has been accepted by the Insurance Company can be tabularised as under : O. D. Basic Premium Rs. 1756. 00 Add 1/4% on S. R. Rs. 217. 50 Add 6 Passengers Rs. 86. 36 Add Driver Rs. 8. 00 Add T. P. Risks Rs. 180. 00 Rs. 2245. 86 Less 10% disc. Rs. 224. 00 Rs. 2021. 86 i. e. Rs. 2022. 1756. 00 Add 1/4% on S. R. Rs. 217. 50 Add 6 Passengers Rs. 86. 36 Add Driver Rs. 8. 00 Add T. P. Risks Rs. 180. 00 Rs. 2245. 86 Less 10% disc. Rs. 224. 00 Rs. 2021. 86 i. e. Rs. 2022. 00 however, it has been specifically mentioned in the clause of insurance policy as under limits of Liability : limit of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-I (a) in respect of any one accident - Unlimited limit of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-I (b) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event.- Unlimited ( 6 ) PERUSAL of the aforesaid clauses in the insurance policy, undoubtedly makes it clear that the Insurance Company has accepted the higher liability by accepting higher premium for payment of compensation to the third party, and therefore, it is obvious that the tribunal has committed an error in restricting liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in view of Section 95 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the impugned award cannot be sustained in law and the appeal deserves to be allowed so far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned. ( 7 ) APPEAL is allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants, if not already paid. Appeal allowed.