JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. - On 8.6.1985, one Rajbir Singh was driving official Jeep of P.W.D. (B&R) Department. At about 10.15 a.m., when he was at Fatehgarh Sahib near Gurdwara Shish Ganj Sahib, bus bearing registration No. PUC 5789 owned by respondent No. 2 and being driven by Manjit Singh, respondent No. 1 struck against the said jeep. As a result, Rajbir Singh died. The other occupants of the jeep had also suffered injuries. They also filed claim petitions. It was alleged that the bus was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. The said bus was insured with respondent No. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited and compensation to the tune of Rs. eleven lacs was claimed. 2. Both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements and contested the case. 3. Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 also contested the case and denied all the allegations. In the alternative, it pleaded that its liability was limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties. 5. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to Harjit Kaur claimant (widow of Rajbir Singh), Dupinder Pal Singh and Tejinderpal Singh (minor sons of Rajbir Singh) and Gurbachan Kaur (mother of Rajbir Singh) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of recovery. The other claim petitions were also accepted partly. However, the plea of appellant-Assurance Company that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- was rejected by the learned Tribunal and accordingly, it was held liable to pay the amount of compensation, vide award dated 17.5.1986. The present appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited. 6. This appeal was admitted qua owner and the driver of the offending bus but it was dismissed qua the claimants. 7. It is not disputed before me that accident, in this case, has taken place on 8.6.1985, i.e. prior to the enactment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short Act, 1939) would be applicable to the facts of this case. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Assurance Company was liable only to the extent of Rs. Therefore, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short Act, 1939) would be applicable to the facts of this case. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Assurance Company was liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,00/- and not to the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others, (2004-2)137 P.L.R. 47 (S.C.). The insurance policy was proved before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit R1. Its photo copy was also proved as Exhibit R-3. 9. Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court towards the bottom portion of first page of insurance policy dealing with limits of liability. It reads as under : Limits of Liability Limit of amount of Companys liability under Section II- 1(i) in respect of any one accident Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the Companys liability under Section II-1 in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of the one event. Rs. 50,000/-. 10. Now, before proceeding further, reference may be made to Section (II)-1(i) and Section II-1(ii) referred to in the heading limits of liability which is reproduced in the insurance policy itself. It reads as under : SECTION II - LIABILITY OF THIRD PARTIES 1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of :- (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. 11. In the present, Section 11(1)(ii) deals with the damage to property. Therefore, it is not applicable to the facts of this case. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. 11. In the present, Section 11(1)(ii) deals with the damage to property. Therefore, it is not applicable to the facts of this case. Only Section 11(1)(i) would be applicable and as per the limits of liability mentioned in the first page of the insurance policy, the Assurance Company is liable to pay such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 12. Section 95(2) of the Act of 1939 lays down the limits of liability of the Insurance Company. Sub-clause (a) deals with the goods vehicle while clause (b) deals with the vehicle in which passengers are carried as in the present case. Section 95(2)(b)(i) lays down that where a vehicle in which passengers are carried incurs a liability in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of Rs. 50,000/- is laid down. In the present case, the accident has taken place with a jeep and Rajbir Singh who has died in the motor vehicle accident was a driver of the said jeep. Therefore, he was a non-passenger. Hence, Section 95(2)(b)(i) of Act, 1939 would be applicable to the facts of this case. As per this clause. the liability of the appellant is restricted to Rs. 50,000/-. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that it is a matter of evidence and it was to be proved by the Assurance Company that the respondent owner has not paid higher premium so as to make the liability unlimited. The respondent Assurance Company has failed to prove if higher premium was not paid and, therefore, the liability of the appellant Assurance Company is unlimited. 14. Reference was also made to the award passed by the learned Tribunal and it was submitted that the policy of insurance does not purport to limit the liability in this case. 15. These submissions have been considered by me. These have no force in law. It was clearly mentioned in the terms of the insurance policy Exhibit R-1 that the liability is limited to the extent it meets the necessary requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The liability of the Assurance Company has been limited by Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1939. These have no force in law. It was clearly mentioned in the terms of the insurance policy Exhibit R-1 that the liability is limited to the extent it meets the necessary requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The liability of the Assurance Company has been limited by Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1939. This provision of law and the terms of the insurance policy have all been discussed by the Honble Supreme Court in Keshav Bahadurs case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court in para No. 7 as under : "In case insurer-appellant 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 does 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." 16. I have gone through the evidence led by the parties as also the terms of the insurance policy. It is not the case of the owner if he had paid higher premium so as to make the liability of the insurance Company unlimited. Therefore, the provisions of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) shall be applicable and the liability of the Assurance Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/- only. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the respondent Assurance Company is held liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The remaining amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent owner/driver. However, in the interest of justice, in the first instance, the appellant Assurance Company shall make the payment of the claim to the claimants/respondents and they shall be entitled to recover the amount beyond Rs. 50,000/- from the respondents owner/driver on the basis of this order. Appeal allowed.