Judgment Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Pd.Singh JJ. 1. The Maxi Taxi bearing registration No. BHK 5758 met with an accident on 25th April, 1988 at 12.30 pm when late Hare Ram Sah was a passenger of the said Maxi Taxi. As a consequence of the accident, late Hare Ram Sah died. His wife and children approached the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Madhepura seeking compensation for the death. 2. In the written statement filed by the owner of the Maxi Taxi, he contended that he has taken out an insurance policy from the appellant and, accordingly, all his liabilities on account of such death stands transferred to the appellant. He gave the particulars of the said policy. Subsequent thereto, the appellant filed a written statement and thereby contended that it has not issued any insurance policy, nor it has any connection with the alleged policy. 3. After the evidence was led, the Tribunal found that there was one eye witness of the occurrence who clearly stated that the Maxi Taxi fell down in the ditch and it turned turtle thrice. He stated, as he was a standing passenger of the said Maxi Taxi, so was the deceased and fifteen to sixteen other persons. He also stated that the vehicle was not being driven fast. 4. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal opined that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. Without, however, there being any evidence on record, the Tribunal felt that the accident may have had taken place on account of some mechanical defect or some defect of the road. The Tribunal acknowledged that it was inferring the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, since it was an accident and as a direct consequence thereof, the death occurred, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the liability and awarded compensation. The Tribunal held that inasmuch as the liability of the owner is covered by a policy of insurance and the same having had been issued by the appellant, the appellant is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation as assessed and awarded. 5. Against the judgment and order of the Tribunal, a first miscellaneous appeal was preferred. The Tribunal held that inasmuch as the liability of the owner is covered by a policy of insurance and the same having had been issued by the appellant, the appellant is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation as assessed and awarded. 5. Against the judgment and order of the Tribunal, a first miscellaneous appeal was preferred. In the appeal, it was firstly contended that inasmuch as there was a finding that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving, there was no liability of the owner of the vehicle. It was secondly contended that in any event, the liability of the appellant, by reason of the insurance policy, stood limited to Rs. 15,000.00 only. 6. Although the first point, as was raised in the appeal, was dealt with and, to our mind, correctly but the second had not been touched and, accordingly, in the instant appeal, the second point, as mentioned above, is the principal contention of the appellant. 7. The burden to prove that the accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent driving certainly rests with the claimant. In order to shift the onus, the claimant is required to bring on record such evidence which would speak for itself that the accident is due to rash and negligent driving. In order to do so, the claimant is required to bring on record such evidence which would show that in the natural course of things the thing that has happened could not happen. In the instant case, it was brought on record that the vehicle in question fell into a ditch and turned turtle three times. The vehicle in question in the normal circumstance could not fall in a ditch and thereupon turn turtle and that too for three times. In the circumstances, we feel that the initial burden to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving was duly discharged by the claimant while leading evidence before the Tribunal. By reason thereof, the onus shifted on to the owner of the vehicle. It was at that stage a requirement of law to plead and prove that by reason of either mechanical defect or some defect of the road the accident occurred. Admittedly, no such step was taken. By reason thereof, the onus shifted on to the owner of the vehicle. It was at that stage a requirement of law to plead and prove that by reason of either mechanical defect or some defect of the road the accident occurred. Admittedly, no such step was taken. The matter must, thus, be concluded and, accordingly, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal as well as the appellate Court correctly held that the claimants were entitled to be compensated for the death due to the accident in question. 8. There is no dispute that the policy of insurance, which is Annexure-2 to the memorandum of appeal, was exhibited before the Tribunal. The said policy of insurance has a schedule of premium having two columns. The left hand side column describes the quantum of premium paid for own damage risk and the right hand side column describes the quantum of premium paid for liability to public risk. In the column of liability to public risk, premium of Rs. 240.00 has been shown to have been paid with that an addition has been made with the description as follows: "Limit per passenger Rs. 12/- each x 15 (Maximum Rs. 15,000.00 as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ) = Rs 180/-" 9. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended that the insurance policy, thus, made clear that the limit of liability to public risk on account of each passenger upto 15 passengers was Rs 15,000.00 as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and for that Rs. 12/- had been collected as premium for each passenger and since the vehicle was authorised to carry fifteen passengers, the sum total of such premium was Rs 180/-. It was submitted that the premium of Rs 12/-paid for each passenger limited the liability of the appellant per passenger to the maximum of Rs.15,000.00 as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was, thus, contended that the liability of the owner of the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 15,000.00 only stood transferred to the appellant in terms of the policy. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents contended that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has not fixed the maximum liability of the appellant for a passenger to Rs. 15,000/-. It was, thus, contended that the liability of the owner of the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 15,000.00 only stood transferred to the appellant in terms of the policy. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents contended that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has not fixed the maximum liability of the appellant for a passenger to Rs. 15,000/-. He submitted that the same is the minimum liability prescribed in the said Act and, therefore, this clause as set out above does not convey what the appellant is seeking to contend before us. He further added that no evidence was led by the appellant before the Tribunal and, accordingly, the appellant did not make any endeavour to represent its case of limited liability before the Tribunal. It was stated that no plea to limit its liability was taken in the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. 11. It is true that the appellant did not take a plea of limiting its liability before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the policy of insurance, as was exhibited before it, transferred the entire liability of the owner of the vehicle on to the appellant. While doing so, we think the Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the words used in the insurance policy. The Act, as correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, fixed the minimum liability of Rs. 15,000.00 per passenger. However, the Act nowhere says that the appellant and the insurer could not agree to fix the liability of the appellant to Rs. 15,000.00 as prescribed in the Act. Therefore, by agreement between insurer and the appellant, it was permissible to agree that the liability of the appellant per passenger would stand restricted to Rs. 15,000.00 only. The question is whether by the clause, as set out above, the liability of the appellant per passenger was fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. A reading of the clause would make it abundantly clear that the words used in the bracket, i.e. maximum Rs. 15,000.00 as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, quantified the limit per passenger and for that per passenger premium of Rs. 12/- had been paid. 12. 15,000/-. A reading of the clause would make it abundantly clear that the words used in the bracket, i.e. maximum Rs. 15,000.00 as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, quantified the limit per passenger and for that per passenger premium of Rs. 12/- had been paid. 12. In those circumstances, we have no other option but to hold that the entire liability as was assessed and awarded did not pass on to the appellant by virtue of the said insurance policy, instead liability to pay Rs. 15,000.00 only out of such compensation as was awarded stood transferred to the appellant by virtue of the said policy of tfee insurance. Accordingly, we declare that the appellant was liable to pay only Rs. 15,000.00 out of the compensation as awarded. 13. It appears that originally appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/-under Section 92A of the Act and the said sum has been received by the claimants-respondents. Such payment satisfies the liability of the appellant in the instant case. 14. It appears that subsequently when the appeal was filed, the new Act had come into force and in terms of Sec.173 thereof, the appellant was required to deposit a further sum of Rs. 25,000.00 as a condition for making the appeal maintainable. The appellant having had deposited the said sum, the claimants-respondents received the same. Although the appellant had no obligation to pay to the claimants-respondents anything more than Rs. 15,000.00 and, accordingly, the claimants-respondents have received the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 in excess from the appellant, but in the fitness of the things, it would be appropriate to authorise appellant to recover the said sum from the owner of the vehicle and not from the claimants-respondents. The claimants-respondents are also entitled to recover the balance of the compensation money as awarded from the owner of the vehicle. It shall be open to the appellant to initiate certificate proceedings for the recovery as above and similarly it shall be open to the claimants-respondents to initiate certificate proceedings for recovery of whatever is left to be recovered of the compensation as awarded. 15. The appeal stands disposed of,