JUDGMENT Prakash Chandra Verma and Ram Autar Singh, JJ.—This first appeal from order has been preferred against the award dated 19.12.1994, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Banda in M.A.C. Petition No. 179/70 of 1992. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured for seven passengers and only two had died, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam etc., 2007 AICC 785 : 2007 (3) ACCD 1537 (SC) and B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Officer, Hassan, the only insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 4. Hon'ble the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam etc., (2007) AICC 785 : 2007 (3) ACCD 1537 (SC), has held in paragraph 16 : “Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. 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. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle, in such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately?” 5. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court the award is modified to the extent that the payment shall be made by the insurance company only and not by the owner. The Tribunal concerned is directed to recover the amount from the insurance company and pay the same to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and the deposit if any made by the owner shall be returned back to the owner.