Judgment 1. Since the two C.M.A.s are connected, they are heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the Van involved in the accident disputes its liability with respect to the two claims made in M.C.O.P. Nos.2279 and 2280 of 1999, since they fell out of the number of persons covered in the insurance policy. 3. On 12.02.1998, group of persons from North India came to the Southern part of this State on pilgrimage in a Van. To some of them it has become their last trip. A most tragic accident took place. Many persons sustained injuries. Some of them died. Their dear and near ones claimed compensation. In M.C.O.P.No.2279 of 1999 for the death of his mother the claimant was awarded Rs.1,88,000/-, with respect to which C.M.A. (MD) No.490 of 2010 has been filed. In M.C.O.P.No.2280 of 1999 for the death of his father, the claimant was awarded Rs.2,32,000/-. With respect to which C.M.A.(MD) No.35 of 2008 has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the insurance policy it is only for 12 persons + 1 driver. However, in this case, in the insured Van persons more than the permitted seating capacity have travelled. There is no insurance coverage for the excess passengers. There are more claims. Already 13 claims are satisfied by the company. So, for the excess two claims, the company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The learned counsel would cite NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ANJANA SHYAM (IV (2007) ACC 355 (SC)) and submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that when the claims goes beyond persons covered in the policy, the company cannot be asked to pay for the excess claims/persons. In such circumstances, in ANJANA SHYAM (supra) the Court formulated a formula to meet such contingency. The learned counsel would also submit that even the said formula could not be applied in the present case because the claims were not tacked together but were scattered among several Tribunals and were tackled by them. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would cite UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. Ltd. v. K.M. POONAM (2011 ACJ 917) and would submit that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to NATIONAL INSURANCE Co. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would cite UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. Ltd. v. K.M. POONAM (2011 ACJ 917) and would submit that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to NATIONAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. v. BALJIT KAUR (2004 ACJ 428 (SC)) directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claims falling outside the policy limit and recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Further, the learned counsel would cite the decision of the Karnataka High Court in MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. Ltd. v. SHANTHAMMA AND OTHERS (2011 STPL (Comp.) 1330 KAR), wherein POONAM's case (supra) has been followed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, the impugned common award of the Tribunal and also the decisions cited at the bar. 7. In B.V.NAGARAJU Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE Co. (1996 ACJ 1178 (SC)) (also see ANANDAVALLI AMMA & ORS Vs. ARVIND EYE HOSPITAL, MADURAI & ORS. (II (2004) ACC 144 (DB)) the insurer's plea of over loading to avoid its liability under the policy has been over thrown. But the most important aspect consistently approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that when there is no coverage for excess persons on board on the offending vehicle the insurer can repudiate those excess claims (See ANJANA SHYAM's case). 8. Faced with such a situation referring to BALJIT KAUR's case (supra), in order to protect third parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued 'pay and recover direction'. 9. It is appropriate here to extract the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in POONAM's case (supra): "24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the insurance company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. 25. As mentioned hereinbefore, in the instant case, the insurance policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle was in respect of six passengers, including the driver, travelling in the vehicle in question. The liability for payment of the other passengers in excess of six passengers would be that of the owner of the vehicle who would be required to compensate the injured or the family of the deceased to the extent of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation was limited to six persons travelling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and direct that the insurance company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case. 27. In other words, the appellant insurance company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount of the amounts awarded in favour of the awardees within two months from the date of this order and the same is to be utilized to satisfy the claims of those claimants not covered by the insurance policy along with the persons so covered. The insurance company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the awards deposited in terms of this order, the insurance company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the insurance company. The insurance company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle." 10. Now, following the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in POONAM (supra), in the case before us, similar direction is required to be issued. 11. The insurance company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle." 10. Now, following the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in POONAM (supra), in the case before us, similar direction is required to be issued. 11. In the result, there shall be modification in the common award of the Tribunal dated 20.01.2006, in M.C.O.P.Nos.2279 and 2289 of 1999. The appellant had already deposited the entire award amount. The appellant is entitled to recover the amount paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the 2nd respondent/Van owner. For this purpose, the total amount of 13 awards, which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the appellant. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the awards deposited, the appellant is entitled to recover the balance amount from the vehicle owner as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant. For this purpose, it need not file any separate suit. It can file an execution petition before the appropriate Court to recover the said amount. The claimant/1st respondent is permitted withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 in C.M.A.(MD) No.490 of 2010 is closed.