JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 4.3.2010 passed by the XVI Addl. Judge, MACT, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) Bangalore City, in MVC No. 3459/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein is the owner of a Car bearing registration No. KA05 MC 927 (Honda City). While the respondent herein was driving the said vehicle on 9.3.2009, it met with an accident with a bus belonging to Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) bearing registration No. KA01 F 1736. Admittedly, the respondent herein claimed under 'own damages' from his insurer i.e., Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and a sum of Rs. 1,18,420 was paid by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to the respondent herein. Subsequently, a claim petition was made in MVC No. 3459/2009 seeking third party property damages (TPPD), against the appellant-Insurance Company which had insured the BMTC bus. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the respondent herein incurred a sum of Rs. 1,88,697 for the repairs of the car. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that a sum of Rs. 1,18,420 was paid by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to the respondent herein and therefore directed the appellant herein to pay the balance of Rs. 70,644 , rounded off to Rs. 75,000 . 3. Mr. S. Krishna Kishore, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the policy in favour of the BMTC bus covers a limited liability. The learned Counsel points out to the policy wherein the limits of liability are as follows: Under Section-I. (i) in respect of any one accident: As per Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Under Section-I. (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Rs. 6,000.00 4. Learned Counsel further submits that the limits of liability is as per section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6,000.00 4. Learned Counsel further submits that the limits of liability is as per section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 147(2) reads as follows: (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in Sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely: (a) save as provided in Clause (b), the amount-of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: 5. The learned Counsel submits that the policy covers damage to any property of a third party only to a limited extent of Rs. 6,000. The policy clause pointed in the policy also establishes the fact that damage to any property of a third party is covered only to the extent of Rs. 6,000, as provided under the Act. 6. There is sufficient force in the submissions of the learned Counsel. The Tribunal has not taken the relevant factors into consideration. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified. 7. The respondent, being a third party and seeking damages to his property (Honda City car), is entitled only to the extent of Rs. 6,000. 8. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,000 payable along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company stands transmitted to the MACT, forthwith. The MACT is directed to calculate the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and disburse the same to the petitioner/claimant. If the amount of compensation exceeds the amount already deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company, the appellant shall pay the balance amount. On the other hand, if the amount of compensation payable is lesser than what has been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company, the balance shall be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.