JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Notices have been sent to the respondent No. 6 by registered post. The office reported that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgment has been received back after service. Thus, there is sufficient service on the respondent No. 6. 2. Heard Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. The appellant is insurer of bus bearing registration No. URU-1566, involved in an accident and was attached with U.P.S.R.T.C. In the accident certain persons sitting in the bus have died and some persons suffered injuries. Tribunal has awarded the compensation at Rs. 27,000/- and directed the appellant to pay the compensation alongwith interest. Present is the case of death. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident took place on 27.2.1982 and on the date of the accident, under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as it existed in respect of each individual passenger there was limited liability of Rs. 5,000/- only on the insurance company. He submitted that though the insurance was comprehensive and statutory in respect of the third party risk, no extra premium has been paid in respect of the third party for unlimited liability and, therefore, under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act the insurance company is liable to pay only Rs. 5,000/- and the balance amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle. 5. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai (Smt.) and others, (1995) 2 SCC 539 and the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M.Jaya and others, 2002 (3) TAC 434 (SC). 6. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The policy is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, which reveals that in respect of the third party risk only statutory premium has been paid and no extra premium has been paid for unlimited liability. The column of unlimited liability is vacant, therefore, the appellant was liable for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for each passenger under Section 95 (2)(b)(ii) of the Act. 7. The column of unlimited liability is vacant, therefore, the appellant was liable for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for each passenger under Section 95 (2)(b)(ii) of the Act. 7. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Jugal Kishore and others, (1988) 1 SCC, has held that comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto the estimated value of 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. 8. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and others, (1995) 2 SCC 539 , the Apex Court while dealing with Section 95 (2) of the Act has held as follows : “These provisions were interpreted by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore. 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. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto 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 policy risk for an amount higher than the statutory amount.” 9. 2,50,000/- does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third policy risk for an amount higher than the statutory amount.” 9. The Apex Court has further held that “mere fact that the insurance policy is comprehensive policy, will not help the respondents in any matter.” 10. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and others, 2002 (3) TAC 434 (SC), has held as follows : “Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any conflict on the question raised in the order of reference between the decisions of two Benches of three learned Judges in Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood aforementioned and, on the other hand, there is consistency on the point that in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, the liability of the Insurance Company is neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section 95 (2) of the Act. In Amrit Lal Sood’s case, the decision in Shanti Bai is not noticed. However, both these decisions refer to the case of Jugal Kishore and no contrary view is expressed. In the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the Bench of three learned Judges in the case of Shanti Bai is correct and answer the question set up in the order of reference in the beginning is as under : “In the case of Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95 (2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount.” 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant is liable to pay only Rs. 5,000/- and the balance amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle. However, the appellant is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation and recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle. —————