JUDGMENT Hemant Chandangoudar, J. - These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 27.04.2013 passed by the Court of Fast Track and M.A.C.T. Hukkeri sitting at Gokak (for short Tribunal ) in M.V.C. No. 1275/2010, M.V.C. No. 1276/2010 and M.V.C. No. 1913/2010. 2. Claimants having sustained accidental injuries on 30.03.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Toofan Jeep, filed claim petitions u/s 166 of M.V. Act to award just and proper compensation. 3. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- to claimant in M.V.C. No. 1275/2010, Rs.2,39,780/- to claimant in M.V.C. No. 1276/2010 and Rs.19,400/- to claimant in M.V.C. No. 1913/2010. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was insured for private purpose. In violation of the terms of the policy and against the provisions of Sec. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, the vehicle was plyed on hire. Hence, the Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions rendered by this Court. i) M.F.A. No. 1894/2003 4.2.2008 ii) M.F.A. No. 23723/2013 11.4.2017 5. Learned counsel for the owner as well as claimant justified the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 7. It is the fact that the vehicle was covered with a comprehensive policy and extra premium was collected for 11 passengers. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kalawathi & Others reported in ILR 2001 KAR 2328 has categorically has held as follows: 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perusing the judgments, it is clear that owner of the vehicle has paid extra premium for 10 passengers, which is evident by policy Ex.R.1. The policy admittedly is a comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of inmates. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited represented by the Deputy Manager vs. Kalawathi and others,2001 ILR(Kar) 2328 has categorically held as follows: 4. That apart we do not find any rationale for the insurer as a State to discriminate between the paid inmate and the gratuitous inmate when the vehicle is covered with comprehensive policy. That apart we do not find any rationale for the insurer as a State to discriminate between the paid inmate and the gratuitous inmate when the vehicle is covered with comprehensive policy. If the vehicle is a private vehicle plyed on hire, the owner may be liable for the penal and fiscal consequences under the Motor Vehicle Act for payment of penalty and taxes applicable to the commercial vehicles. But from the standpoint of the insurer, it makes no difference whether the inmate is a paid passenger or gratuitous passenger. When the policy issued is a comprehensive policy covering risk of the inmates of private vehicle, the insurer cannot avoid liability on the ground that the inmate is a paid passenger. In that view, we hold that the terms in the policy, which discriminates the liability of the insurer for the paid inmate and gratuitous inmate is discriminatory and illegal. 7. In view of the dicta laid down by this Court, no discrimination would be made between the paid inmate and the gratuitous inmates when the vehicle is covered with a comprehensive policy. If the vehicle is a private vehicle, plyed on hire, the owner may be liable for the penal and fiscal consequences under the provisions of the M.V. Act for payment of penalty and taxes. It is also pertinent to note that extra premium is paid by the owner for 10 passengers. 8. In view of the law laid down by this Court, no discrimination would be made between the paid inmate and the gratuitous inmate when the vehicle is covered with a comprehensive policy. If the vehicle is a private vehicle, plyed on hire, the owner may be liable for the penal and fiscal consequences under the provisions of M.V. Act for payment of penalty and taxes. 9. Since the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kalawathi & Others is subsequent to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, it would be appropriate to follow the subsequent judgment. 10. In this case, it is pertinent to note that extra premium was paid by the owner for 11 passengers. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court cited supra, fastening of liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation cannot be found fault with. 10. In this case, it is pertinent to note that extra premium was paid by the owner for 11 passengers. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court cited supra, fastening of liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. Amount in deposit to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursal in accordance with law. Claimants are entitled for withdrawing entire compensation amount deposited before the Tribunal.