JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Chakarbarty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No. 07 of 2010 passed by District Judge-II-cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro. Whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/- as compensation to the claimants and also directed to pay. the same after deducting Rs. 50,000/- if paid earlier under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Hereinafter referred as the Act) within a period of one month from the date of Order failing which penal interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid from the date of framing of issues i.e. 20.10.2011 till the date of payment. 3. It is the case of the claimants in the court below that deceased was the employees of Centure Pharmaceutical Private Limited. On 06.02.2008 the son of claimants Sumit Kumar along with his friend Ajit Kumar Dey were coming from Dhanbad to Ranchi for business purpose on his vehicle which was a bike bearing registration no. JH01P 4443. A truck was coming rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and the rider to save in vehicle as well as both themselves turned towards Kachcha Road and collided with a tree as a result of which son of claimants namely Sumit Kumar sustained grievous injury but rider Ajit Kumar Dey died on spot. Sumit Kumar sustained grievous injury and in course of treatment he died at B.G.H. 4. On the basis of written report submitted by the Choukidar 215 Mujib Ansari an FIR vide Bermo (Peterwar) P.S. Case No. 45/2008 dated 06.06.2008 has been registered against the rider deceased Ajit Kumar Dey u/s 279/338, 304 A of I.P.C. On 10.06.2008 the pillion rider Sumit Kumar has died. After having investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against unknown truck driver. 5. Pursuant to notice, the appellant appeared before the court below and filed the written statement, stating therein:- “There is no cause of action against the O.P. The claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder for necessary parties. The claim is also barred by limitation, bad by the principle of estoppal, waiver and acquiescence. 5. Pursuant to notice, the appellant appeared before the court below and filed the written statement, stating therein:- “There is no cause of action against the O.P. The claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder for necessary parties. The claim is also barred by limitation, bad by the principle of estoppal, waiver and acquiescence. He has further submitted that the party does not admit the manner and description of the accident as stated in the claim application. The alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the unknown truck driver and charge-sheet submitted against the same. Hence this claim petition is not maintainable against the O.P. So far the admission of insurance policy of Motorbike is concerned, it has been pleaded that the insurance have limited liability as per the policy condition. In the alleged accident deceased was not cover under the purview of third party. The income of the deceased Rs. 12,500/- is baseless imaginary and untenable as no income certificate or TDS has been filed by the claimant. Hence the O.P. denies the same. As such the claim petition is fit to be dismissed. ” 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and after having discussions on the various exhibits and documents came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get compensation as indicated in the judgment and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/- to the claimant no. 1 Chhaya Rani Dey and Claimant no. 2 Ram Kanhai Dey jointly through A/c Payee Cheque subject to deduction of Rs. 50,000/-, if paid, u/s 140 of the Act, to the claimants. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that as contained under section 147 of the Act the said liability of the Insurance Company is either statutory or contractual and in view of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation so far as the owner is concerned. The liability of Insurance Company is meant only for the third party as prescribed under section 147 of the Act. Mr. Kumar draws the attention of this Court at Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal from which it transpires that the policy was third party basis and compulsory personal accident to the owner cum driver and the compensation is Rs. The liability of Insurance Company is meant only for the third party as prescribed under section 147 of the Act. Mr. Kumar draws the attention of this Court at Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal from which it transpires that the policy was third party basis and compulsory personal accident to the owner cum driver and the compensation is Rs. 1,00,000/- only. 8. The insurance Company is in the court below has pleaded that the Insurance Company has limited liability as per the policy condition in which the deceased was not come under the purview of third party. The income of the deceased was Rs. 12,500/- is baseless and unimaginable and untenable as no income certificate or TDS has been filed by the claimants, on the basis of that the Insurance Company has denied his claim. 9. Mr. D.K. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the contra submits that as the policy was comprehensive and in view of the matter the claimants are entitled to compensation. 10. In view of the rival submissions of the parties the only issue which Court needs to decide is as to whether the accident involves the insurers and the vehicle itself in view of the section 147 of the Act. The Insurance Company is liable to pay for the owner or not. 11. I have gone through the impugned judgment from which it is an admitted fact that motorcycle was insured at the time of accident. It is also admitted that the deceased was the owner of the said motor cycle apart from this fact nothing come on the record. Exhibit-1 shows that after the accident the case has been lodged as Bermo (Peterwar) P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 Exhibit–2 and charge-sheet of the said P.S. Case is submitted against the unknown truck driver. 12. Mr. Manish Kumar draws the attention of the Court to the Section 147 of the Act: Section 147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. 12. Mr. Manish Kumar draws the attention of the Court to the Section 147 of the Act: Section 147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. — (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily27 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee— (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (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: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. 13. To support his arguments Mr. Kumar relied upon the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others reported in 2009(1) Supreme 447 in paragraph 15 of the said judgment apex Court held that : “15. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. 13. To support his arguments Mr. Kumar relied upon the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others reported in 2009(1) Supreme 447 in paragraph 15 of the said judgment apex Court held that : “15. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an `act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that the life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational.” 14. The case of Sadanand Mukhi before the Supreme Court and the present appeal before this Court is same. In that case also the respondent is the owner of the motorcycle he got his vehicle insured. The policy being failed while his Son driving his motorcycle met with an accident and died. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. The policy being failed while his Son driving his motorcycle met with an accident and died. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise. 15. Mr. Kumar further relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2004 (7) Supreme 164 the Supreme Court in para 8 held as under: Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party cause by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section, 147 does not require an insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any hesitance to come to the finding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay amount Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the terms of the policy. 17. Mr. Kumar further submits that they have paid Rs. 1,00,000/- pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants. In view of the facts and circumstances of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others and Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., I find that the award dated 05.10.2016 need to be modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is liable to pay only Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the terms of the policy which has already been paid. It is made clear that any amount paid to the claimants more than Rs. 1,00,000/- shall not be recovered from them. 18. 1,00,000/- as per the terms of the policy which has already been paid. It is made clear that any amount paid to the claimants more than Rs. 1,00,000/- shall not be recovered from them. 18. Accordingly, the award dated 05.10.2016 is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in part. 19. The registry is directed to refund the deposited statutory amount to the insurance company. The appeal is disposed of.