Judgment 1. The dispute with regard to the claim being barred by limitation has not been pressed and is given up. 2. The following question has been referred to the Division Bench to consider and decide: "As to whether the Insurance Company can claim exemption on the ground of limitation under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act read with Section 28 of the Contract Act in respect of their indemnifying the liability in Motor Accident Claim Cases wherein under the New Act limitation has altogether been deleted." 3. By this appeal by invocation of the provision of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited has impugned the award of 3rd Additional District Judge, Samastipur, recorded, on 24.4.2002, in Claim Case No. 20 of 1998 allowing a consolidated sum of Rs. 3,99,000/- as compensation for the unfortunate demise of a Judicial Officer in the rank of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.) on account of an unfortunate road mishap which occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of a private bus. The accident occurred cutting short the life of a promising Judge in the prime of his youth at the age of 33 years on 11.3.1978. The deceased Surendra Nath Verma, S.D.J.M. died in an unfortunate road accident leaving his widow and two minor children. 4. The widow on her behalf, as well as, on behalf of the minor children resorted to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by filing an application for compensation before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal at Samastipur within the State of Bihar. The applicants made a claim of Rs. 5,50,000/- under all the heads by way of compensation from the errant driver of the bus, the owner and the insurer. Upon assessment and evaluation of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Samastipur, awarded an amount of Rs. 3,99,000/- with proportionate cost and interest against all the respondents, original claimants, despite the plea having been raised on behalf of the appellant Oriental Insurance Company that the liability of the company is restricted to the extent of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the Act Policy of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 . 5. 3,99,000/- with proportionate cost and interest against all the respondents, original claimants, despite the plea having been raised on behalf of the appellant Oriental Insurance Company that the liability of the company is restricted to the extent of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the Act Policy of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 . 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned award of the Tribunal holding the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company, liable for the payment of the entire amount, the appellant has come up in this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the New Act inter alia contending that the coverage of the bus involved in the accident under the insurance policy at the relevant point of time was restricted to the extent of only an amount of Rs.50,000/-being the Act-Policy under the old Act. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives and claimants of the de-. ceased Judicial Officer. We have also scanned and evaluated the testimonial collections for the purpose of appreciation of the merits of the impugned award under challenge and particularly from the point of view of the accident of the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company to the limit of Rs. 50,000/-. We have also been taken through the relevant case law in course of submissions. 7. The main issue in focus before us in this appeal is very much limited. The dimension of the issue has shrunk down only to the extent as to whether the direction contained in the impugned award against the present appellant, original respondent Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of the award, namely, Rs. 3,99,000/-alongwith Advocates fee is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the proposition of law evolved thus far. 8. In this connection, we have threadbare considered the provisions of Sections 95(2) and 96 of the Old Act, as well as, the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the New Act. The main contention raised on behalf of the respondents-original claimants is that the award is justified requiring no interference. 8. In this connection, we have threadbare considered the provisions of Sections 95(2) and 96 of the Old Act, as well as, the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the New Act. The main contention raised on behalf of the respondents-original claimants is that the award is justified requiring no interference. It is further contended that the liability of the Insurance Company tor payment of the compensation to a third party though is restricted and the insurer is liable to pay to the extent limited, the full liability can be fasten with the Insurance Company when the life of a third party is at a stake. We have now to decide as to whether the Insurance Company is justified in raising such a plea and whether the direction against it for the payment of entire amount of award with cost and interest statutorily being the Act policy could be fasten by the Tribunal under the law to which our positive answer is clearly in the negative. 9. In order to consider the extent of liability of the Insurance Company, let it be mentioned that the insurance policy in question covering insurance of the offending bus involved in the accident is under the Act policy and in view of the provisions of Section 95(2)(1) the liability of the Insurance Company in case of an Act policy where there is no higher premium, the wider coverage would be statutorily Rs. 50,000/-. This aspect has not been properly examined and appreciated, with due respect, by the Tribunal. 10. When the insurance policy arises out of a contract, the liability is either restricted by the provisions in the Statute or under the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance policy, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the plea advanced of restricting limited liability under the Act Policy in so far as the provisions contained in the old Act are concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, original claimants has contended that the liability though limited even being an Act policy for the third party the insurer has to bear the burden for the additional amount of the limit prescribed in the Act policy and for that the insurer has to recover from the Insurance Company. This contention prima facie may appear to be alluring and attractive but not acceptable. This contention prima facie may appear to be alluring and attractive but not acceptable. We have been taken through the relevant case law and would like to refer first at this juncture the constitutional Bench decision rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. C.M. Jaya and Ors. [(2002)2 Supreme Court Cases 278]. Upon consideration and examination of this case law it leaves no manner of doubt that the Constitutional Bench decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has succinctly laid down the proposition for the liability of the Insurance Company in an Act policy where the limit restricted will be only up to the amount as per Act policy in terms of the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Old Act. 12. Let it be highlighted that in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) precisely the point in focus for reference to the Constitutional Bench was as under: "The question involved in these appeals is whether in a case of insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, in case of payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to pay the entire amount and he may ultimately recover from the insured. On this question, there appears-to be some apparent conflict in the two three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court(1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Shanti Bai, 1995 2 SCC 539 and (2) Amrit Lai Sood vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar." 13. This question has been answered in paragraph 14 by the Constitutional Bench holding that the view expressed by the Bench of three learned Judges in case of Shanti Bai: [ (1995)2 SCC 539 ] is correct and answer to the question set out in the order of reference in the beginning is as under: "In the case of the 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." 14. In view of the Constitutional Bench decision precisely on the point which is also in focus in this appeal is answered by the Constitutional Bench (Five Judges Bench). In view of the Constitutional Bench decision precisely on the point which is also in focus in this appeal is answered by the Constitutional Bench (Five Judges Bench). This proposition of law enunciated is fully enforcing the point raised on behalf of the Insurance Company which is decided otherwise by the Tribunal by passing an award for compensation to the heirs of the deceased Judicial Officer. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants has placed reliance on the case laws in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Leharu and Ors.: (2003)3 S.C.C., 338, New India Assurance Co. & Ors. V/s. Kamla and Ors.: (2001)3 P.L.J.R. 74 (S.C.) and National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Bahuri Devi & Ors., [ (2004)2 P.L.J.R. 166 ] which would not be necessary to be considered at this stage by us for the simple reason that the Constitutional Bench decision or verdict rendered by five Judges is binding to this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India unless modified, annulled or reversed. It will, therefore, detain us no longer to go into the meticulous examination of the case laws relied upon on behalf of the original claimants, respondents before us, in this appeal. 16. However, we make it clear that the liability prescribed under the Statute in resultant policy for the coverage of the insurance of the vehicle is, over and above, the proportionate amount of cost and interest on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which requires no further consideration as it is a spell proposition of law. So, the liability of the Insurance Company, appellant before us, shall be to the extent as provided in the Act policy read with the provisions of Section 95(2) of the old Act to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- plus proportionate cost and interest by way of damages on account of the road mishap. The additional liability fasten under the impugned award has to be quashed and set aside being contrary to the aforesaid legal proposition. 17. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company, in this Court pursuant to the order has been disbursed to the claimants. However, the amount of proportionate cost and interest on an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has not been paid. 17. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company, in this Court pursuant to the order has been disbursed to the claimants. However, the amount of proportionate cost and interest on an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has not been paid. In the light of peculiar facts and special circumstances emerging in the present case coupled with the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1978 in which a promising young Judicial Officers life was cut short at the cruel hands of the providence, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards the cost and interest shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today and upon the amount being deposited before the Tribunal, it will be open for the Tribunal to consider as to whether the amount may be paid in cash or it may be deposited in the fixed deposit scheme so that periodical interest may be availed of by the claimants since the compensation amount as designed and devised is to cover the loss safely of the dependents. 18. In the result, this appeal shall stand partly allowed and the award shall stand quashed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant Insurance Company shall pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as proportionate cost and interest on the amount of Rs. 50,000/-which learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant shall endeavour to deposit within four weeks from today.