JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. The insurer M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.05.2014 passed in MVC No.186/2010 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioners before the tribunal that on 10.12.2009, the deceased Dilip boarded the Tata Magic vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-39-M-0847 at Kohinoor village in order to go to Basavakalyan and at about 12:30 p.m. when the vehicle was proceeding on NH-09 near Sastapur Bungalow, Basavakalyan, the driver of the said vehicle was driving the same in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-13-X-1719 coming from opposite direction, due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day while he was under treatment in Government Hospital, Basavakalyan. The claimants have stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as a supervisor in Mumbai and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and maintaining his family. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.45,40,000/-. 3. In pursuance of the notice respondent No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the contents of the petition specifically and categorically, they have contended that the police officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of the Tata Magic in collusion with the driver of the Lorry. Respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3. Hence, the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. 4. Respondent No.3 filed the written statement denying the contents of the petition, the vehicle involved in the case i.e. Tata Magic is a private car having sitting capacity of seven including driver, but as on the date of accident, the vehicle was used for carrying passengers for hire and reward and totally 16 persons were travelling in the said vehicle. Therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent No.2 the owner. Hence, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. Therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent No.2 the owner. Hence, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. Claimant No.1 the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and the claimants have got produced 13 documents. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has got examined RW1 and produced 3 documents. It is seen from the record that previously the petition was allowed by judgment and award dated 31.03.2011 and the same was challenged by the insurer before this Court in MFA No.31371/2011. The said MFA was disposed of on 19.08.2013. The impugned judgment and award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the tribunal to consider as to whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. This Court also directed to afford opportunity to the parties for further evidence and decide the issue regarding the saddling the liability on the insurance company. It appears after the remand, PW1 was further examined and the tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The petition against respondent No.1 was dismissed and respondent No.2 the owner and the respondent No.3 the insurer were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and respondent No.3 the insurer was directed to deposit the award amount with interest within 60 days. 6. The insurer has questioned the legality of the impugned judgment and award in this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer relying on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s K.M.Poonam and others, 2012 Kant(MAC) 265 (SC), submitted that the vehicle in question was used for hire and reward and that the risk of the seven persons only is covered under the policy. Therefore, the insurer is liable to satisfy seven claims arising out of the said accident and the remaining claims have to be satisfied by the owner of the vehicle. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants relying on the same judgment submitted that so for the insurer has satisfied five awards and this is the sixth award being passed against the insurer. Therefore, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in this case. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants relying on the same judgment submitted that so for the insurer has satisfied five awards and this is the sixth award being passed against the insurer. Therefore, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in this case. The learned counsel submitted that the claim of the appellant herein is covered within the statutory liability. The learned counsel further submitted that even after satisfying seven claims, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and recovered the same from the owner in respect of other claims. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Now the following short point arise for consideration before this Court. (1) Whether the appellant-insurer has made out grounds to exonerate him from the liability to satisfy the award? 10. The records goes to show that the claimants have been seeking compensation for the death of the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2 to 5 and son of claimant No.6 in the motorcycle accident which occurred on 10.12.2009. Previously, the claim petition was allowed by the tribunal which was challenged by the claimants before this Court in MFA No.31371/2011 as the liability was not saddled on the insurance company. Therefore, this Court allowed the appeal and the set aside the impugned judgment and award in so far not saddling liability on the insurance company and remanded the matter with a direction to decide the issue regarding saddling of liability on the insurance company, after giving opportunity to both the parties. In the result, the claimants are not able to get any compensation till today. 11. The insurer is not disputing that he is liable to satisfy seven claims arising out of the said accident and it is also not disputed that till today the insurer has satisfied only five claims. Therefore, the appellant-insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed in this case. It is not disputed that the insurance policy issued by the appellant-insurer covers the risk of seven persons including the driver in the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s K.M.Poonam and others stated supra, has observed in para 24 as follows: "24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s K.M.Poonam and others stated supra, has observed in para 24 as follows: "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 subsection (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." 12. Therefore, it is crystal clear that after satisfying the permitted number of claims still the insurer is liable to satisfy the award and recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, the question of pay and recovery also does not arise. Admittedly, the insurer has not yet satisfied the maximum number of seven claims. It is also admitted that the claimants have not sought for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurer being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The compensation amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal.