JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. TALAPATRA, J. Heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, MV Act) from the judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.TS(MAC) No.442 of 2012. 3. The main ground of objection raised in this appeal is as to the liability of the appellant in making payment of the awarded compensation. According to the appellant the vehicle which met the accident was having capacity of 38 passengers on the date of accident. But from the first information report being Khliehriat PS Case No.130(a) of 2012 under Section 279/427/337/338/304(a) of the IPC, it would be apparent that according to the informant 28 passengers died in the spot and 27 passengers including the driver sustained injuries on their person. Thus, there were 54 passengers in the said vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-Y-7379 (Bus) at the time of accident. 4. Insurance Company cannot be made liable for indemnifying the damage in respect of all the passengers. Their liability should be restricted to only 38 passengers and the workmen including the driver in the said vehicle. But the Tribunal while passing the said judgment has completely ignored that aspect of the matter and mechanically saddled the liability of payment of the award expressly on the appellant-insurance company in respect of all the claim petitions. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the damage in respect of all the passengers as the consequence of the said judgment. 5. The respondent No.1 received serious injuries on her head, chest and other parts of the body and incurred a substantial sum of amount for her treatment. For the injury, according to her, she lost her job in a private enterprise. In support of medical expenses, a lot of documents have been admitted in the evidence and finally after her deposition being recorded, the Tribunal has observed that the respondent No.1 (the claimant) is entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.37,940/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application i.e. 05.10.2012 till realization. It has been further directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay the said compensation. It has been further directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay the said compensation. After appreciating the deposition of OPW-1 (the witness as adduced by the appellant in the Tribunal) the Tribunal has observed as under: “It now requires decision as to who shall be liable to pay the compensation. Documents of the offending bus filed by the OP no.2 reveals that on the date of the accident, the bus had valid registration number and it was under the insurance coverage of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala. Further, copy of the driving license filed reveals that the bus was driven by its driver holding a valid driving license. So, the liability is supposed to be shifted upon the Insurance Company. But, before drawing the conclusion, deposition of OPW1 on the point is required to be looked into. He has deposed that the charge sheet reveals that the accident was caused due to overloading of the passengers in that, 30 passengers died on the spot and 26 passengers were injured which is beyond the seat capacity of the vehicle. So, as there was violation of the condition of the policy, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay any compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has also argued on the point. Cross examination of the OPW.1 however reveals that so far, the company has received thirty two claims and that as per the policy, the passenger capacity of the vehicle was thirty eight. It is thus evident that the instant claim is well within the policy coverage of the vehicle. The liability of the award thus shifts upon the National Insurance Company.” 6. Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel at the outset has submitted that another appeal out of the same accident has been decided by this court on the same point of objection as raised by the appellant in this appeal. 7. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has supported this proposition without reservation. He has submitted a copy of the said judgment dated 24.04.2017 delivered in MAC App. No.06 of 2015, MAC App. No.108 of 2014 and MAC App. No.109 of 2014 passed by this court. In the said judgment while considering the solitary objection as raised in this appeal, this court had occasion to observe as follows: “8. He has submitted a copy of the said judgment dated 24.04.2017 delivered in MAC App. No.06 of 2015, MAC App. No.108 of 2014 and MAC App. No.109 of 2014 passed by this court. In the said judgment while considering the solitary objection as raised in this appeal, this court had occasion to observe as follows: “8. In view of the above observations, the only question that is left for decision by this court in all these appeals is what has been formulated above [para-4]. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that even though, there is a breach of the condition as the insurer of the said offending vehicle they cannot avert the liability of payment of in respect of the passengers within limit and the driver-workman whom the insurance policy covered. Thus, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel 39 person [passengers + driver] are contractually covered by the policy. But the insurer-appellant are not liable to pay beyond that. If it happened that the claims are raised in respect of all the persons who died or received injuries in the said accident, the liability would involve for more than 39 persons. He has thus categorically stated that the insurance company cannot be saddled with the said liability which is not contractually permitted. In support of that Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Lt. versus Anjana Shyam and Others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 where the law has been enunciated to resolve this complex issue in the following manner : “16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself ? As this court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. As this court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90 and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.” 9. Mr. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.” 9. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the apex court in Sunil Sharma and Ors. versus Bachitar Singh reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2811. In order to counter the submissions of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Das, learned counsel has referred a decision of the Gauhati High Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Samina Begum and Others reported in (2013) 3 GLR 349 where the Gauhati High Court has laid down the law as under : “13. On aggregate consideration of the materials as available in the records and as scrutinized by this court as well as on appreciation of the contentions by the counsel of the parties, this court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant shall pay the awarded sum to the claimant-respondent forthwith on deducting the sum, if any, that has been paid by this time. It is further held that after adjudication of the claim petitions as referred in Ext. C and D document, if it is found that the claims of the passengers are more than 34, then the insurance company would be at liberty to recover the rateable proportion as per the clause as extracted from the India Motor Tariff from the insured, owner of the vehicle under section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for that purpose the appellant shall furnish copies of the judgment and award before the Tribunal for due examination. It is made clear that the award has to be satisfied by the appellant in all the cases initially and only thereafter they would be at liberty to realize the rateable proportion if it is found that the passengers who fell victim to the said accident were more than 34(thirty four).” 10. Mr. B. Debnath and Mr. It is made clear that the award has to be satisfied by the appellant in all the cases initially and only thereafter they would be at liberty to realize the rateable proportion if it is found that the passengers who fell victim to the said accident were more than 34(thirty four).” 10. Mr. B. Debnath and Mr. D.C. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents in other 2(two) appeals have expressed that there is no record in the evidence to show how many claims have been raised by the victims of the said accident, even if, hypothetically it is assumed that the claimants would be beyond 39 then also according to the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents, the Insurance Company Limited cannot initially avert their liability inasmuch as in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus K.M. Poonam & Ors., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2802 the apex court has observed 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. 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.” 11. 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.” 11. Having considered the rival contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the basic liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the highest awards till the first 39 awards meaning all the highest awards would be added for having the basic liability of the Insurance Company. If the awards were beyond the limit of liability, the initial liability of the Insurance company would be to satisfy the said additional awards but at the same time, the Insurance company shall remain entitled to recover the said additional amount from the owner by a certificate proceeding under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act without instituting any suit.” 8. This court is satisfied that the said finding and the decision do well cover the present controversy and the solitary question of objection as raised by the appellant. Thus, this appeal is dismissed with observation that the liability of the insurance company would be limited to first 39 major awards, meaning all the first highest awards be added to as the basic liability of the insurance company. If the awards were beyond the limit of liability, liability of the Insurance Company would be to satisfy the said additional awards but at the same time, the Insurance Company shall remain entitled to recover the amount from the owner by a certificate proceeding under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act without instituting any suit. That apart, this court has found that the Tribunal has categorically observed that so far 32 claim-petitions have been filed. The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has received the notice of the proceedings in respect of 32 claim petitions. No costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.