JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Rajesh Joshi, counsel for the appellant and Shri Vipul Painuly, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the aforesaid appeals, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 21.11.1983 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal) by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has allowed the Motor Accident Claim nos. 5 of 1983, 17 to 1982, 18 of 1982, 19 of 1982, 20 of 1982 and 1 of 1983. Appeals have been preferred against the award with regard to Motor Accident Claim nos. 17 of 1982, 18 of 1982, 19 of 1982 and 20 of 1982. However, the facts of each claim petition are discussed below :- 3. The brief facts of Motor Accident Claim No. 17 are that the claimants in the this case were residents of village Bhelunta, Patti Orn, District Tehri Garhwal. They had a son named Roshan Lal Joshi, aged about 14 years. He was a student and was a bona fide passenger of the bus no. USQ 311. It has been alleged that the aforesaid bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and as a result of that accident, Roshan Lal Joshi, son of the claimants died on the spot due to the injuries received by him. It has been stated that the claimant no. 1 is aged about 50 years and expect to live for 20 years more. It has been stated that the claimant intended to join his son i.e. late Roshan Lal Joshi in the Military services after passing his High School. It has been stated that if he had not met with the accident in question, he could have earned Rs. 600/- per month and could have helped his parents to the extent of Rs. 75/- per month for full twenty years. It has been stated that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 18,000/- on this account and Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental distress. It has been stated that even after deducting 10 per cent out of the sum of Rs. 24,000/-, they are entitled to get atleast Rs. 21,600/-. It has been stated that the claimant no. 2 is entitled to get Rs. 22,500/- on account of death of his son and Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental distress. It has been stated that even after deducting 10 per cent out of the sum of Rs. 24,000/-, they are entitled to get atleast Rs. 21,600/-. It has been stated that the claimant no. 2 is entitled to get Rs. 22,500/- on account of death of his son and Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental agony, thus a total of Rs. 28,500/-. It has been stated that even after deducting 10 per cent, the claimant no. 2 is entitled to get Rs. 25,450/-. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 47,050/- in total from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurance company of the bus in question. 4. The brief facts of Motor Accident Claim no. 18 of 1982 are that Shiv Shanker, since deceased, was the husband of the claimant no. 1 i.e. Sushila Devi. It has been stated that the claimant no. 2 Dinesh Chand Semwal is son aged about 18 years, claimant no. 3 Mukesh Semwal is minor son and claimant nos. 4 and 5, Km. Hemlata aged about 15 years and Km. Urmila aged about 13 years are the daughters of the deceased. It has been stated that they are the residents of village Mukhem Patti Upli Ramoli, District Tehri Garhwal. It has been stated that the deceased Shiv Shanker was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident in question and he was employed as cable worker. His monthly income was Rs. 955/- per month. It has been stated that the deceased Shiv Shanker was a bona fide passenger in the bus in question which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. It has been stated that due to the accident the deceased received the injuries and died on the spot. It has been stated that the deceased Shiv Shanker was contributing Rs. 500/- per month towards the maintenance and education of the claimants and remaining 455/- was being used to spent by the deceased Shiv Shanker on himself. It has been stated that due to the accident the deceased received the injuries and died on the spot. It has been stated that the deceased Shiv Shanker was contributing Rs. 500/- per month towards the maintenance and education of the claimants and remaining 455/- was being used to spent by the deceased Shiv Shanker on himself. It has been stated that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and if he had not died in the accident, he would have continued in his service for atleast 15 years more, it has been stated that even after the age of retirement till the age of 70 years, the deceased would have contributed @ atleast 250/- per month towards the maintenance of the present claimants. It has been stated that the claimants suffered mental agony on account of the death of Shiv Shanker, who was the sole earner of the family and they suffered to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- on this count. It has been stated that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 90,000/- @ Rs. 500/- per month for 15 years i.e. till the date of retirement, Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs. 250/- for 12 years after the retirement and Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental distress and, thus, a total of Rs. 1,32,000/- has been claimed from the driver, the owner and the insurance company by which the bus in question was insured. 5. Motor Accident claim no. 19 has come up with the allegations that they are the residents of village Mandar Patti Dhungmandar, Tehsil Pratapnagar District Tehri Garhwal. It has been stated that Puran Singh, since deceased, was the husband of the claimant no. 1, Smt. Bimla Rawat. The claimant no. 3 is the daughter of late Puran Singh and claimant nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of late Puran Singh. It has been stated that the deceased Puran Singh was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident in question and he was a labourer by profession and was also doing the petty business and was employed with the contractors doing construction work in District Tehri Garhwal. It has been stated that the monthly salary of the deceased Puran Singh was about Rs. 750/- per month. It has been stated that the monthly salary of the deceased Puran Singh was about Rs. 750/- per month. It has been stated that the deceased Puran Singh was a bona fide passenger of the Bus in question and was coming from Lambgaon to Tehri at the time of the accident in question at about 9.00 to 9.30 A.M. on 2.8.1982. It has been stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the bus in question met with an accident in which Puran Singh received serious injuries. He was admitted in Tehri Hospital where he remained in a state of coma for about 41 days and ultimately died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It has been stated that the deceased Puran Singh was bringing apples for selling during the season to Tehri town at the time of the accident. He was contributing Rs. 500/- per month towards the maintenance of the present claimants i.e. his widow, son, daughter and aged parents. It has been stated that the deceased Puran Singh was expected to live upto the age of 70 years and since he was aged only 28 years only at the time of the accident and, as such, he would have earned Rs. 3,78,000/-. He would have contributed at least about Rs. 2,52,000/- towards the maintenance of the present claimants and after deduction of 1/3rd amount out of the same, the deceased Puran Singh would have contributed the amount to the extent of Rs. 1,68,000/- for the maintenance of the claimants. The claimants have also claimed Rs. 5,000/- towards the medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards mental suffering, Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000/- towards the loss of apples. The claimants have also claimed Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium of the widow (claimant no. 1) of the deceased Puran Singh. Thus, the claimants have prayed for compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurance company of the bus in question respectively. 6. So far as Motor Accident Claim no. 20 of 1982 is concerned, the claimants have come up with the allegations that they are the residents of village Ramolgaon, Pattin Orn, Tehsil Pratapnagar, District Tehri Garhwal. 2,00,000/- from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurance company of the bus in question respectively. 6. So far as Motor Accident Claim no. 20 of 1982 is concerned, the claimants have come up with the allegations that they are the residents of village Ramolgaon, Pattin Orn, Tehsil Pratapnagar, District Tehri Garhwal. It has been stated that the deceased Birchand was the husband of the claimant no.1, Pyar Dei and was the father of the claimant no. 2 Km. Jamuna Dei. It has been stated that the deceased Birchand was aged about 25 years at the time of his death. The claimant no. 1 was aged about 21 years and the claimant no. 2 was aged about 2 years at the time of the accident in question. It has been stated that the deceased Birchand was doing the work of mason and he was earning Rs. 500/- per month. It has been stated that besides the present claimants, Smt. Roop Devi, the mother of the deceased Birchand was also solely dependant on the deceased Birchand. The deceased Birchand was a bona fide passenger of the bus in question which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It has been stated that due to the accident in question, Birchand, since deceased, received injuries and died on spot. As a result of the death of the deceased in the accident in question, the claimants lost the sole bread earner and suffered the mental agony. It has been stated that the deceased Birchand was earning Rs. 20/- per day i.e. Rs. 600/- per month and out of that amount he used to contribute Rs. 300/- per month on the maintenance of the claimants. It has been stated that the deceased Birchand was aged about 25 years at the time of his death and the deceased would have survived at least till the age of 70 years and, thus, the claimants have suffered a loss of Rs. 1,62,000/- @ Rs. 300/- per month for a period of 45 years. The claimants have also claimed for Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by them. Thus, they have suffered a loss of Rs. 1,68,000/- on account of the death of Birchand. 1,62,000/- @ Rs. 300/- per month for a period of 45 years. The claimants have also claimed for Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by them. Thus, they have suffered a loss of Rs. 1,68,000/- on account of the death of Birchand. It has been stated that even after reducing 10 per cent from the aforesaid amount, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,52,000/- from the respondents on account of the death of Birchand. It has been stated that since the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question, therefore, the claimants are entitled to recover the compensation amount from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurance company by which the bus in question was insured. 7. A written statement was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and have contested the claims of all the aforesaid claimants. It has been submitted that the accident in question was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question. It has been denied that the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently or at high speed. It has been submitted that it is not possible to drive the loaded bus fast. It has been submitted that when the bus had come up from Ganga Bridge there was upward inclination all the way till Tehri-Uttarkashi Road. It has been denied that the driver should not have turned the vehicle at the junction of Lambgaon-Bahldiana road with Tehri-Uttarkashi Road. It has been submitted that the drivers coming from the Lambgaon side normally take their vehicles to bigger bend towards Uttarkashi and then turn towards Tehri. The driver of the bus in question when reached nearly 10 to 15 feet away from the junction of the Tehri-Uttarkashi Road and Lambgaon Road, he saw two truck standing in side of the road towards Uttarkashi. It has been submitted that if he had driven the bus straight towards the bigger bend, it would have collided with the aforesaid trucks. The respondent no. 1 i.e. bus driver turned the vehicle from the left side to take a turn towards Tehri in order to avoid the collision. It has been submitted that if he had driven the bus straight towards the bigger bend, it would have collided with the aforesaid trucks. The respondent no. 1 i.e. bus driver turned the vehicle from the left side to take a turn towards Tehri in order to avoid the collision. When the bus in question was half-way towards the bend, another truck which was being driven rashly and negligently came from Tehri side and the driver of the bus in question applied the breaks to stop the bus in order to avoid collision with the truck but the brakes failed and the bus started rolling and rolled down the khud and the accident occurred due to the reasons over which there was no control of the driver of the bus in question. It has been submitted that if the truck from the Tehri Side had not appeared suddenly, the bus in question would have negotiated the bend safely. All the aforesaid claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from any of the respondents and the rate of the compensation claimed by the claimants are highly exaggerated. The accident of the bus took place due to unforeseen reasons and it was a pure accident for which none was liable. It has been submitted that if there is any liability of compensation, the same rests with the insurance company and not on the other respondents. 8. The respondent no. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has also filed a written statement and has submitted that the amount of compensation in all the aforesaid claims is excessive. It has been submitted that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It has been denied that the accident took place due to any fault on the part of the driver. The claims are not maintainable. It has also been submitted that in any case the liability of the insurance company is limited as per the policy and under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. All the claims are liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. On the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. USQ 311 by the driver O.P. No. 1? 2. 5,000/-. All the claims are liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. On the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. USQ 311 by the driver O.P. No. 1? 2. To what compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled? 3. Whether the liability of O.P. No. 3 is limited to Rs. 5,000/- only? 10. So far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the claimants have examined P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.Ws 5 to 11. P.W.5 Chait Singh was one of the fellow passenger of all the victims. P.W.11 Hukum Singh Rawat was the Patwari of the relevant circle, who had prepared the site plan of the place in criminal case no. 285/83 and has proved the F.I.R. P.W.2 Sate Singh and P.W.8 Kamal Singh were also the fellow passengers and are the eye witnesses of the accident in question. P.W.3 Sushil Kumar Ghyldiyal, X-ray technician and P.W.4 Dr. Pramod Kumar, who had medically examined the injuries were also examined. In the documentary evidence, the claimants have filed Ex. 1 to 13 i.e. X-ray plates, X-ray reports, certificates and receipts and site plan of the place of occurrence prepared in the criminal case no. 285 of 1983. 11. On the basis of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. 12. On the basis of statement of P.W.11, Hukum Singh Rawat, Patwari of the circle in question, it was clearly established that the bend in question was very sharp towards Tehri when the accident took place and it was not the usual turn, much less for heavy vehicles and the Uttarkashi Road was the much wider bend and the heavy vehicles usually turned towards Tehri from that bend and crossing and not the one by which the driver of the bus in question had turned the bus towards Tehri at the time of the accident. One of the fellow passenger, Chait Singh has also narrated about the said accident. 13. D.W.1 Balbir Singh, the driver of the bus in question has been examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 and a copy of policy through which the vehicle in question was insured with respondent no. 3 was also filed. One of the fellow passenger, Chait Singh has also narrated about the said accident. 13. D.W.1 Balbir Singh, the driver of the bus in question has been examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 and a copy of policy through which the vehicle in question was insured with respondent no. 3 was also filed. With regard to oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent no.1, the trial court has recorded the finding that the driver of the vehicle himself is a highly interested person and since there is nothing on record, either oral or documentary, to corroborate his version about the manner in which the accident had taken place, it is sufficient to discard his testimony. The claims tribunal has, therefore, recorded the finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question. 14. While deciding issue no. 2 with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has awarded the compensation to the claimants for each claims separately. 15. In Motor Accident Claim No. 17 of 1982 Ram Ratan and another, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/- each to claimant nos. 1 and 2 on the count of mental agony and the compensation to the extent of Rs. 75 x 12 x 12 in case of claimant no. 1 which comes to Rs. 10,800/-, Rs. 75 x 12 x 17 which comes to Rs. 15,300/- in case of claimant no. 2 and, thus, claimant no. 1 was awarded Rs. 16,800/- and claimant no. 2 was awarded Rs. 21,300/- in total. 16. With regard to Motor Accident Claim No. 18 of 1982 Smt. Sushila Devi and 4 others, the claims tribunal has awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs. 41,400/-. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding to the following effect :- “So taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, these claimants should be entitled to recover Rs. 6,000/- on account of mental shock and sufferings which they must have undergone on account of the death of Shiv Shanker Semwal since deceased which appears to be reasonable. But in so far as the amount of Rs. 16,000/- claimed by them is concerned towards the contribution which the deceased might have made till the age of his retirement. 6,000/- on account of mental shock and sufferings which they must have undergone on account of the death of Shiv Shanker Semwal since deceased which appears to be reasonable. But in so far as the amount of Rs. 16,000/- claimed by them is concerned towards the contribution which the deceased might have made till the age of his retirement. 50% of the entire amount has got to be deducted because they must be getting family pension also after his death from the government and thus the total amount to which they are entitled to receive by way of compensation from the respondents on this head comes to Rs. 63,000/- only, and adding to it Rs. 6,000/- which they are entitled by way of compensation on account of mental shock and sufferings, the total amount which they are entitled to recover by way of compensation from the respondents, come to Rs. 69,000/- and since they are going to get this amount in a lump sum after deducting 40% out of the same the actual amount which these claimants are entitled to recover from the respondents comes to Rs. 41,400/-. 17. With regard to Motor Accident Claim No. 19 of 1983 Smt. Bimla Devi and others, the claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 78,160/-. The claims tribunal has recorded the findings to the following effect :- “Thus from her statement which remains unrebutted it is apparent that the monthly income of her husband was about Rs. 600/- to Rs. 750/-. Even if we assume it was Rs. 600/- out of which he spent Rs. 200 on himself the deceased must have been contributing the rest of the amount for the maintenance of the present claimants who were solely dependant on him, and this benefit they have been deprived of altogether, and therefore in my opinion the present claimants who are 5 in number were entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for a period of 32 years, because at the time of his death the deceased was 28 years of age and his working capacity as a labourer would not have extended beyond his age of 60 years had he not met with an accident a longevity is the norm in the family of the claimants, and as such he would have contributed Rs. 1,53,600/- to the family and since they were entitled to this amount of compensation in a lump sum after deducting of the same the total amount comes to Rs. 92,160/- and out of this amount, P.W.10 herself admits that she has obtained Rs. 20,000/- from the government under insurance benefit scheme so after deducting that amount also, the present claimants are entitled to recover Rs. 72,160/- under this head from the respondents.” “In so far as the funeral expenses are concerned, the claimants have claimed Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation on this ground and P.W. 10 named above has also stated on oath that this amount was spent which amount also appears to be reasonable and natural. So these claimants are entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation of this count also from the respondents.” “The claimant no. 1 who is the widow of the deceased has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- by way of loss of consortium which cannot be denied to her but the amount aforesaid appears to be excessive and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice if awarded to her by way of compensation on this head to her.” 18. So far as Motor Accident Claim no. 20 of 1982 Pyar Dei and another is concerned, the claims tribunal has awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,800/- i.e. 37,800/- on account of death compensation and Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental agony. The findings recorded by the claims tribunal are quoted below :- “However, from the perusal of her statement aforesaid it appears that her husband was only a casual labourer and only at times he was employed as a mason if at all and there was agricultural fields also with the present claimants which they were cultivating as before and since he was only a casual labourer in view of her own admission obviously it is also absolutely false that he was regularly contributing Rs. 300/- towards her maintenance or that of her daughter every month or his monthly income was Rs. 600/- and assuming that he worked as a mason only for half the month his income would come to Rs. 300/- towards her maintenance or that of her daughter every month or his monthly income was Rs. 600/- and assuming that he worked as a mason only for half the month his income would come to Rs. 300/- only per month to the utmost and out of which even if we assume that he was contributing half the amount thereof for the maintenance of the present claimants the total contribution which he would have made towards the maintenance of his family would come to Rs. 150/- p.m. and since he was aged 24 years at the time of his death and even if we judge his working capacity till the age of 60 years he would have contributed at the rate aforesaid for the maintenance of the present claimants only Rs. 15 x12 x 35 = Rs. 63,000/- and since the present claimants were going to get this amount in lump sum on this count after deducting 40% out of the amount which comes to Rs. 37,800/- alone to which the present claimants are entitled to recover from the respondents by way of compensation this head. In so far as the claimant no. 2 was concerned, she was hardly ½ years of age at the time of the death of Beer Chand, since deceased, then she could hardly know or feel the shock about the death of her father at that tender age, and the claimant no. 1 would and must have suffered the shock aforesaid, which was natural on account of the death of her husband in the accident in question, and she is entitled to recover half the amount of Rs. 6,000/- that is to say Rs. 3,000/- only on account of the shock received by her on the death of her husband in the accident, in question. Thus, the total amount to which these claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 40,800/- to which alone, I hold they were entitled to recover by way of compensation from the respondents.” 19. In all the claims, the claims tribunal has also awarded the interest on the amounts of the claims at the rate of 3% per annum till the date of recovery of award. 20. As will appear from the aforesaid order that the claims have been awarded against all the respondents. 21. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a limited liability in accordance with Section 95(1)(b)(ii). 20. As will appear from the aforesaid order that the claims have been awarded against all the respondents. 21. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a limited liability in accordance with Section 95(1)(b)(ii). I have perused the judgment of Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Shanti Bai and others reported in 1995 ACJ 470 where it has been held as under :- “7. Section 95 forms part of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Under Section 95, in order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which, inter alia, insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2). Under section 95 (1)(b)(ii), the insurance policy must cover the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Sub-section (2)(b) provides as follows : “95. (1) ** ** ** (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) ** ** ** (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 of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger,” These were he provisions at the relevant time. These provisions were interpreted by this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jugal Kishore, 1998 ACJ 270 (SC). This court observed 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. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured, a higher premium is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured, a higher premium is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitled the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf. It has further observed as under : “Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on this score, however, does not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act. For this purpose a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance company in this behalf.” In the present case, therefore, a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle of Rs. 2,50,000/- does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit. 8. It was contended before the High Court that a separate premium has been paid for the passengers. This shows that there was a special contract to cover unlimited liability in respect of passengers between the appellant company and the respondent no. 4. The tribunal as well as the High Court seem to have proceeded on the basis that the appellant company had charged an extra premium of 0.50 paise per passenger to cover the risk of unlimited liability towards passengers. This seems to be an error. The premium of Rs. 600/- has been paid in respect of 50 passengers. The policy clearly shows this. It is not 0.50 paise per passenger. It is pointed out by the appellant company with reference to its tariff in respect of ‘legal’ liability for accidents to passengers’ that if the limit of liability for any one passenger is fifteen thousand rupees, the rate of annual premium per passenger is Rs. 12/-. If the limit is twenty thousand rupees, the rate of premium per passenger is Rs. 23/- per annum and so on. In respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger is Rs. 50/-. 9. 12/-. If the limit is twenty thousand rupees, the rate of premium per passenger is Rs. 23/- per annum and so on. In respect of unlimited liability, the premium payable per passenger is Rs. 50/-. 9. In the present case, the premium which has been paid is at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger and is clearly referable to the statutory liability of fifteen thousand rupees per passenger under section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, there is no special contract between the appellant company and respondent no. 4 to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the absence of such an express agreement, the policy covers only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy will not help the respondents in any manner. As pointed out by this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jugal Kishore, 1998 ACJ 270 (SC), comprehensive policy 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 is absent in the present case. Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC). The appellant company is, therefore, entitled to succeed to the extent that it has been directed to pay to respondent nos. 1 to 3 any amount in excess of Rs. 15,000/-. 22. In the present cases, as will appear from the award that it has been passed against all the respondents, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the entire liability has been extended upon the insurance company alone. The claims tribunal has awarded within the statutory liability and, as such, apart from the statutory liability, it will be open for the insurer to recover from the insured. 23. Subject to the aforesaid observations, all the appeals are dismissed.