JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Notices have been sent by registered post to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The office report says that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgment slip has been received back after service. The service on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is sufficient. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appellant is insurer of Truck, bearing registration No. U.T.Y. 3727 which was a goods vehicle. 3. The short submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident occurred on 19.6.1987 at 8-00 a.m. The claim petition was filed in the year 1987. Thus, the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will apply and in view of Section 95 (2) (a) the liability of the Insurance Company was only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. However, in the present case, the Court below has awarded the compensation at Rs. 1,93,600/- and has directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount alongwith interest @ 15%. He further submitted that the interest @ 15% is highly excessive. 4. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In the present case, the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) is applicable. Section 95 of the Act provides requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 95 (2) of the Act provides that subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely, where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. Thus, in my view, the liability of the Insurance Company in view of Section 95 (2) of the Act was only to the extent of Rs,1,50,000/- and the balance amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle. 6. Thus, in my view, the liability of the Insurance Company in view of Section 95 (2) of the Act was only to the extent of Rs,1,50,000/- and the balance amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle. 6. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Jugal Kishore and others, (1988) 1 SCC (Sic), 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. 7. 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.” 8. The Apex Court has further held that “mere fact that the insurance policy is comprehensive policy, will not help the respondents in any matter.” 9. 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.” 10. In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that under the term of the policy any extra premium has been paid and the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured unlimited, over and above, the statutory liability fixed under Section 95 (2) of the Act. 11. Further, the interest @ 15% is also excessive. 12. In the cases of Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh and another, 2007 (1) TAC 15 (SC), in as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others, 2004 (2) TAC 1 (SC), the Apex Court has allowed interest @ 9% per annum and following the aforesaid two decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salil Prakash Gupta, 2012 (3) TAC 359, has also awarded interest only @ 9% and modified the order of the Tribunal to that extent. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the decisions, referred herein above, I am of the view that the interest awarded @ 15% is excessive and it is accordingly reduced to 9%. The order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent only. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The order dated 19.8.1991 is modified to the extent that against the amount of Rs. 1,93,600/- awarded as compensation, the Insurance Company is liable to pay upto Rs. 1,50,000/- and the balance amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle. However, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation with the liberty to recover a sum of Rs. 43,600/- from the owner of the vehicle and in place of interest @ 15%, it will be 9%. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation,if it has not already been deposited, within a period of two months and the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within another period of one month. —————