JUDGMENT : M.D. SHAH, J. 1. By these first appeals, the appellant herein-original opponent No. 2 has challenged the judgment and award dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 801 of 1996 to M.A.C.P. Nos. 808 of 1996 and M.A.C.P. Nos. 872 of 1996 to 879 of 1996 on the point of negligence as well as on the point of breach of condition of policy. 2. Facts - Deceased Ramabhai and other persons (total 15 persons) were travelling in Matador bearing No. GJ-2T-2039 which was insured with the appellant herein. When they were passing near Chapi Palanpur highway, one truck No. DL-1G-2935 came from opposite direction and dashed with the matador causing the accident between two vehicles. Fifteen claim petitions were filed by the injured persons and one claim petition was filed by the heirs of the deceased who passed away in the accident. 3. After considering evidence on record and after giving opportunity to all the concerned parties, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions. Learned Tribunal by judgment dated 11.01.2008 has held present appellant herein-Insurance Company with whom matador was insured negligent to the extent of 80% and driver of the truck to the extent of 20%. Hence, present appeals are filed by the appellant herein-Insurance Company of the matador. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant herein that prima facie there is breach of condition of the policy as 16 persons were travelling in the matador as against the carrying capacity of 6 persons. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in not the considering the above aspect and held only the present appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. It is further submitted that considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record, prima facie driver of the truck is also equally liable to pay compensation. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the respondents herein-original claimants that in light of the judgment delivered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. K.M. Poonam and Others, 2011 AIR SCW 2802, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but, the insurance company can recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Ltd. vs. K.M. Poonam and Others, 2011 AIR SCW 2802, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but, the insurance company can recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that in the accident, fifteen persons received injuries and one person died. This Court has gone through the common judgment and award dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal together with oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal after discussing the evidence on record in great detail has come to the conclusion that driver of the Matador was negligent to the extent of 80% and driver of the truck to the extent of 20%. 7. This Court has gone through the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In the said reported case, fifteen passengers were carried in the vehicle against the carrying capacity of six and majority of passengers received fatal injuries. In the present case also, fifteen passengers were carried in the vehicle against the carrying capacity of six and one person died and others received injuries. Facts of the said case are identical to the facts of the present case and therefore, this judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 24 and 25 of the said judgment has held as under: “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 subsection 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.” 8. It is required to be noted that Tribunal has not passed any order to the effect that Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the decision rendered in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), in the opinion of this Court, appellant Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the amount paid by it in excess of its liability from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle (Matador). 9. In view of above, the first appeals are partly allowed. This Court is not altering the judgment and award dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 801 of 1996 to M.A.C.P. No. 808 of 1996 and M.A.C.P. No. 872 of 1996 to 879 of 1996 so far as negligence and quantum of compensation are concerned. This Court is not altering the judgment and award dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 801 of 1996 to M.A.C.P. No. 808 of 1996 and M.A.C.P. No. 872 of 1996 to 879 of 1996 so far as negligence and quantum of compensation are concerned. The Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle. The liability of the Insurance Company shall be to the extent of total amount of six awards which are the highest. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the awards deposited in terms of this judgment, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle. The amount, if any, lying with the Registry of this Court may be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. The impugned common judgment and award dated 11.01.2008 is modified to the aforesaid extent. 10. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.