JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 5th August 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vyara, District Surat in MAC Petition No. 183 of 1995 thereby disposing of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by awarding a sum of Rs.2,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 7½ % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with this appeal by restricting its grievance only to a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- by accepting its liability to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. 3. The following facts are not in dispute :- 4. On 23rd October 1994, while the owner of the scooter in question, namely, Maniben, was going from Dhamodi to Navsari on her own motorcycle bearing No. GJ-05-5759 as pillion rider and the scooter being driven by her husband, in view of a big ditch they had fallen from the scooter and the owner of the vehicle, namely, Maniben died. Subsequently, the two children of Maniben, excluding the husband, who was the driver of the scooter, filed the claim application against the Insurance Company. According to the claimants, the deceased was a dealer of Castrol Oil and she was earning Rs.5,000/- a month; her age at the time of accident was 56 years and subsequently, they claimed a sum of Rs.3 lakh as compensation against the Insurance Company. 5. The application was opposed by the Insurance Company contending that as per the terms of the insurance, the deceased paid additional premium of Rs.30/- for the pillion rider for the purpose of getting an insurance to the extent of Rs.40,000/- and, therefore, as per terms of the policy, the Insurance Company was liable only to the extent of Rs.40,000/- for which extra premium of Rs.30/- has been paid in addition to the third-party claim. 6. The learned Tribunal below by the award impugned herein has allowed the application awarding a sum of Rs.2,37,000/- with a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. 7. After hearing Mr. 6. The learned Tribunal below by the award impugned herein has allowed the application awarding a sum of Rs.2,37,000/- with a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. 7. After hearing Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants, I find that it is it is now a settled law that in a case where compensation is claimed for the death or injury of the owner of the vehicle who is insured, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. (See Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 ). 8. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 , an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insurer in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property to a third-party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. According to the Supreme Court, Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. According to the Supreme Court, where the policy covered any risk or injury of the owner himself by payment of premium for that purpose, in that case, the owner is entitled to get compensation for injury caused to him; otherwise, in respect of third-party-insurance, an owner cannot claim insurance against himself unless personal-accident-insurance has been taken out. 9. In the case before us, it appears from the insurance policy that additional sum of Rs.30/- has been paid as premium for coverage of the owner and pillion rider but limiting only to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. 10. Thus, in the case before us, by virtue of the policy between the deceased and the Insurance Company, for the death of the deceased who was a pillion rider, the liability of the Insurance Company is extended only to the extent of Rs.40,000/- and not more than that. 11. 10. Thus, in the case before us, by virtue of the policy between the deceased and the Insurance Company, for the death of the deceased who was a pillion rider, the liability of the Insurance Company is extended only to the extent of Rs.40,000/- and not more than that. 11. I, therefore, modify the award impugned by limiting the liability of the appellant only to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. The claimants are entitled to recover the sum from their father who was driving the vehicle. 12. It appears from the order dated 3rd July 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the Insurance Company/the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- being the liability under challenge before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was directed to invest the same in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years with the clause of renewal in the event the appeal is not heard before the due date and a further direction was given that the claimants would be entitled to interest periodically as and when it becomes due. 13. Since this Court has held that the claimants are not entitled to any amount beyond Rs.40,000/-, if any amount in excess of the amount of Rs.40,000/- has been received by the claimants as interest pursuant to the order dated 3rd July 2007, they will be liable to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of withdrawal till refund to the Insurance Company. Let the amount, if any, be refunded positively within two months from today. The Tribunal is directed to refund the balance amount with accrued interest, if any, in favour of the Insurance Company after a period of one month from today after being satisfied that the sum of Rs.40,000/- with interest has been received by the claimants. 14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal allowed.