Judgment :- A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals impugning the common judgment and separate awards passed in M.V.C. Nos. 821 to 828 of 2004, by the learned Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli allowing in part, the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act) against the appellant and another, fixing initial liability on the appellant to pay compensation amount, observing that, it is entitled to recover the excess amount than the permit liability of 12+1, from the owner of the vehicle. 2. We have heard Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni and Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Learned Counsel consented for final disposal of the appeals. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that, the appellant had issued the policy of insurance in respect of a Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA 25/6348, which had the permit to carry 12 passengers. The policy of insurance was issued to cover the risk of 12 passengers and a driver. The vehicle has met with an accident on 30-4-1999. In all, 9 claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act were instituted before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. During the course of enquiry on behalf of claimants P.Ws. 1 to 9 deposed and Exs. P. 1 to P. 26 were marked. On behalf of the insurer, R.W. 1 deposed and Exs. R. 1 to R. 3 were marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions in part. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the vehicle was overloaded, that the driving licence of the driver was not produced and hence the Insurance Company has no liability. Alternatively, he contended that, the owner of the vehicle having permitted the vehicle to be overloaded, has committed breach of the contract of insurance policy and therefore, the appellant is entitled to repudiate the policy and is not liable to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v Challa Upendra Rao and Others AIR 2004 SC 4882 : (2004)8 SCC 517 . 5. Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v Challa Upendra Rao and Others AIR 2004 SC 4882 : (2004)8 SCC 517 . 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants, contested the said submissions. They contended that, the appellant is approbating and reprobating; the principles of acquiescence is attracted, in that, another claim which arose out of the same accident filed by the L.Rs of one Imam Sab Masalji in M.V.C. No. 345 of 1999 wherein the award was passed on 5-11-2004, which was modified and enhanced in M.F.A. No. 559 of 2005 on 27-9-2006, was satisfied by the appellant and hence it is not open to the appellant to contend anything contrary. Learned Counsel contended that, the appellant admittedly issued a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle which had the carrying capacity of 12+1 passengers and the policy of insurance was current on the date of the accident and hence is liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. They cited the decision of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v Anjana Shyam and Others AIR 2007 SC 2870 : (2007)7 SCC 445 : 2007 AIR SCW 5237 and submitted that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is squarely covered. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 6. The core contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the Insurance Company has only insured 12 passengers and the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be enlarged. Learned Counsel contended that according to Ex. P. 1-the FIR, there were more than 35 passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident, hence there is violation of permit conditions, consequently Section 149(2) of the Act enables the insurer to raise the defence against the claims and the decision rendered in the case of Challa Upendra Rao is applicable. 7. P. 1-the FIR, there were more than 35 passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident, hence there is violation of permit conditions, consequently Section 149(2) of the Act enables the insurer to raise the defence against the claims and the decision rendered in the case of Challa Upendra Rao is applicable. 7. In the case of Challa Upendra Rao, the facts of the case are that, three persons were travelling in an autorickshaw which met with an accident and claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Act, which were resisted by the insurer on the ground that, the insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle and therefore in terms of the policy, the insurer had no liability. The Tribunal accepted the plea. In appeal, the High Court held that, the insurer was liable to indemnify the award. The Insurance Company filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that, the High Court has lost sight of the fact that, plying the vehicle without the requisite permit is breach of specific condition of the policy and therefore the insurer had no liability. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, noticing the view taken by the High Court that, since there was no permit, question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise, has held that, the view was clearly fallacious. In these appeals, the facts and circumstances are totally different. The vehicle in question undisputable had the permit to carry 12 passengers apart from the driver, in respect of whom the insurance policy had been issued by the appellant and the number of claims being less than the permitted number of passengers, the said decision has no application. R.W. 1, Administrative Officer of the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that, the Insurance Company has deposited the award amount in the connected disposed of case and it has not preferred appeal and that the company is liable to pay compensation for 13 victims. Ex. R. 3 is a copy of the insurance policy which shows that the vehicle in question was insured by the appellant from 26-9-1999 to 25-2-2000, covering the risk of 12 passengers and a driver, since the permit of the tempo was for 12+1. 8. As already noticed, there are only 9 claims filed by the L.Rs of 9 passengers, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 8. As already noticed, there are only 9 claims filed by the L.Rs of 9 passengers, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Learned Counsel for the appellant conceded the fact that, no other person has filed any claim in respect of the aforesaid accident and that no other claim petition is pending in any other Tribunal. Hence it is clear that, as against permitted 12 passengers, only the L.Rs of 9 passengers filed the claim petitions and out of them, the claim made in MVC No. 345 of 1999 which was allowed on 5-11-2004 and modified and enhanced in M.F.A. No. 559 of 2005 on 27-9-2006, has already been satisfied by the appellant. Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the claim petitions in which the accident is same and the jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is same. It is not open to the appellant to take different or opposite stands in the claims arising out of one and the same accident, involving the same vehicle to which the insurance policy has been issued. The stand of the appellant in the circumstances is unjust. Hence it is not open to the appellant to avoid the liability in respect of the impugned 8 awards. Even otherwise, the policy covers the risk of 12 passengers and only 9 claim petitions were filed and awards passed. Hence also, it is not open to the appellant to avoid the liability by contending that, there is violation of conditions of permit. 9. In the case of Anjana Shyam, the bus which had the carrying capacity of 42 passengers, one driver and one conductor, in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, was insured for 42 passengers other than the driver and the conductor. The bus which was overloaded with 90 passengers fell off the road into a nullah on 4-3-1996, leading to the death of 26 persons including the one who was driving the bus and 63 persons were injured. The L.Rs of the deceased passengers and the injured approached the MACT claiming compensation and seeking adjudging on applications made under Section 166 of the Act. The L.Rs of the deceased passengers and the injured approached the MACT claiming compensation and seeking adjudging on applications made under Section 166 of the Act. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, contending that, the bus was overloaded; was not driven by the authorised driver at the time of the accident and that the Insurance Company had no liability. The Tribunal did not accept the objections and passed the awards making the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount covered by all the awards exceeding 42 covered by the insurance policy. The Insurance Company filed 38 appeals challenging the awards and contended that the Insurance Company could be found liable only to the extent of insurance it had provided and it was bound to provide in terms of Section 147 of the Act and in terms of the conditions of the permit held by the owner of the bus. The contention pressed for consideration was that, the Insurance Company having insured 42 passengers, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be enlarged and is confined only to 42 passengers insured. Considering the said factual position and the contention, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows. "The Act only imposes an obligation to take out insurance to cover third party risks and in the case of stage carriages, the passengers to be carried in the vehicle and the passengers to be carried in the vehicle can be understood only as passengers authorised or permitted to be carried in the vehicle. We are of the view that the Insurance Company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the Insurance Company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy". From the decision, it is clear that, even if the vehicle had carried passengers more than the carrying capacity/permit i.e., overloaded, the insurer cannot avoid the liability, but is liable in respect of the number of passengers for whom the insurance policy was issued. Merely because the vehicle involved in the accident was overloaded, it is not permissible for the Insurance Company to avoid the liability, but its liability gets restricted and it will be liable only in respect of whom, policy was issued and it has to satisfy the higher of the various awards and deposit the higher of the amount of compensation awarded to the extent of number of passengers covered by the insurance policy, to ensure that maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers. 10. Though an apprehension was expressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, there may be few more claims by others, arising out of the same accident, we do not find merit in the contention for the reason that, the accident has taken place on 30-4-1999 and more than 9 years have lapsed and no other claim has admittedly been put forth. When we specifically questioned the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company whether any claim arising out of the said accident has been filed and is pending, he candidly submitted that, there is no other claim petition pending consideration. Hence, the apprehension is without any basis. 11. With regard to the submission that, the appellant be permitted to recover the amount from the owner, we do not find any merit, in view of the fact that, the appellant is not satisfying the awards of more than 12 permitted passengers, whose risk is covered by Ex. P. 3 policy, issued by it. 12. 11. With regard to the submission that, the appellant be permitted to recover the amount from the owner, we do not find any merit, in view of the fact that, the appellant is not satisfying the awards of more than 12 permitted passengers, whose risk is covered by Ex. P. 3 policy, issued by it. 12. The amount if any deposited by the appellant in this Court, be immediately transferred to the Tribunal for necessary action. It is for the Tribunal to pass orders on the applications for premature release of the amount in deposit, if a case is made out to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, by the applicants/claimants. For the foregoing discussion, the appeals are devoid of merit and hence are hereby dismissed. No costs.