JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.2002 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 650/1993. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a motor vehicle accident took place on 11.3.1998 at about 10.00 PM when the Bus bearing No. RJD 3181, being driven by Kunwarpal Singh rashly and negligently, came and a pedestrian fitted, and as a result thereof Mohan Singh sustained various injuries on his body and ultimately died on the spot. He was urged 31 years and earning Rs. 1200/- per month. 3. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents claiming a sum of Rs. 4,04,520/- as compensation. As against this claim made the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur under its award dated 4.9.1993, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,61,800/- as compensation and the interest thereof at the rate of 15% per annum. 4. The Insurance Company filed appeal, out of which this special appeal arises, against that award of the learned Tribunal, the award has been challenged only on the ground that u/S. 95 of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in the case of death of the third party. This ground raised found favour with the learned Single Judge and accordingly the appeal was allowed and the liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate what it was awarded by the learned Tribunal, thus this special appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the owner paid the additional premium to the Insurance Company and thus its liability is unlimited to the third party. It is further submitted that the burden was on the Insurance Company to show that its liability was limited one. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire record of the case we are satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any substance and merit. 7. Section 95 of the Act, 1939 leaves no doubt that the liability of the Insurance Company in the motor accident is limited. 7. Section 95 of the Act, 1939 leaves no doubt that the liability of the Insurance Company in the motor accident is limited. Despite of that, under the statute the liability of the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation is fixed, there is no bar that it may insure the vehicle with its unlimited liability after charging the higher premium. The appellant though has raised this point but was not produced any material before the learned Single Judge of the Tribunal to show that the additional premium has been paid by him. It is a different matter that he can blame to the Insurance Company but cover-note or the insurance policy issued of the vehicle and thus he was in possession of the relevant document which could have been produced. That apart he could have produced the receipt of the deposit of the premium but that has also not been done. 8. In the absence of the material in support of the ground raised and contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same cannot be accepted. It is a question of fact whether the additional premium has been paid or not and unless the same is established by producing cogent and satisfactory evidence the relief prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted. 9. For the reasons afore-stated we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. In the result the special appeal ails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the special appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******