JUDGMENT : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. 1. All these appeals are preferred against the common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) in a group of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.85 of 1986 (Main) and other Motor Accident Claims Petitions. However, the present Appeals are preferred against the order pass in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.85 of 1986, Motor Accident Claims Petition No.153 of 1986 and Motor Accident Claims Petition No.242 of 1986. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present Appeals are stated as under: FACTS OF MACP No.85 of 1986 :- 2.1 The claimants of this petition are heirs and legal representatives of deceased Jayantilal, who was a passenger in S.T.bus involved in the accident. The S.T. bus was proceeding towards Ahmedabad. According to the claimants because of the rash and negligent driving of S.T. bus No.GRB.7259 of Batva-Ahmedabad route and truck no.GTZ.5463, the accident took place. Both the vehicles collided with each other near village Bagodara on the culvert. Deceased Jayantilal Chhaganlal was aged about 52 years and he was healthy and free from vices. He was a businessman. He was also a tax payer and looking to the longevity of his family, there was ample scope for him to survive for at least 18 years more. Deceased belonged to a reputed philanthropic jain family and was earning Rs.3,000/- from his partnership business. It is the say of the claimants that considering contribution of the deceased to the family, the applicants should be awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. FACTS OF MACP No.153 of 1986 :- 2.2 The claimant of this petition sustained injuries in the accident. He was also one of the passengers of the S.T. bus involved in the accident. According to him, he was sleeping on the back side seat of the driver. It is contended by him that he sustained injuries and was taken to hospital in Dholka and after preliminary treatment, he was asked to go in another hospital. According to him, by hiring an vehicle, he went to Civil Hospital at Limbdi and thereafter, he went to Rajkot and got himself admitted in a private nursing home of orthopaedic surgeon, Dr.D.K.Shah. He had undergone through major operation and blood was provided to him. According to him, he is a businessman and is dealing in business of bangles. According to him, by hiring an vehicle, he went to Civil Hospital at Limbdi and thereafter, he went to Rajkot and got himself admitted in a private nursing home of orthopaedic surgeon, Dr.D.K.Shah. He had undergone through major operation and blood was provided to him. According to him, he is a businessman and is dealing in business of bangles. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1200/- p.m. Because of the accidental injuries, he has sustained physical permanent disability. He has spent huge amount during treatment and looking to the young age of 27 years, he should be awarded compensation liberally under various heads and he should be awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. FACTS OF MACP No.224 of 1986 :- 2.3 This is also an injury case. Injured claimant Dharmeshbhai has prayed for compensation of Rs.1,32,000/-. According to the applicant, he was one of the passengers in the S.T. bus involved in the accident. He is dealing in business and also working as technician as he has done Radio Engineering Course. He has also done T.V.Engineering course and has secured first class. He is resident of Jamnagar having his T.V. repairing and service shop. According to him, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest. He was taken to hospital. As per the averments in para 10 of the petition, the accident has occurred because of the sole negligence of the driver of the S.T. bus was rash and negligent and was driving the bus in violation of traffic rules. 2.4 Ultimately the Tribunal, after the evidences were led and arguments were heard, passed the following order: “All the petitions are partly allowed. The petitioners of claim petition mentioned in column no.2 of the schedule below, do recover the amount shown in column No.3 of the schedule from the opponents shown in column No.4 of the schedule, jointly and severally with an interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and the proportionate costs. The rest of the claim of each case is dismissed with no order as to costs. The opponents of each case do bear their own costs. Regarding liability, both the drivers of Truck and S.T. bus are held negligent at the ratio of 60:40. The order regarding apportionment and investments shall be passed in all the cases after the amounts are deposited with this Tribunal. The opponents of each case do bear their own costs. Regarding liability, both the drivers of Truck and S.T. bus are held negligent at the ratio of 60:40. The order regarding apportionment and investments shall be passed in all the cases after the amounts are deposited with this Tribunal. If any amount is paid towards interim compensation in any of the claim petition, shall be given credit of. SCHEDULE Sr No. Claim Petition No. Amount Awarded From whom the amount is awarded 1 85/86 Rs.3,05,800/- All the opponents jointly & severally 2 153/86 Rs.70,400/- - do - 3 224/86 Rs.12,500/- - do - 4 242/86 Rs.1,70,000/- -do- 5 345/86 Rs.34,080/- -do- 6 829/06 Rs.12,500/- - do - 7 1021/86 Rs.1,59,000/- -do- Pronounced in open court on this 29th day of February, 1996.” 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Anal Shah appearing for the appellant submitted that liability of the present appellant insurance company is limited to sum of Rs.50,000/-. Though the Tribunal has passed an order holding all the opponents jointly and severally to pay the amount awarded considering the fact that the liability of the present appellants is limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/- only whereas the Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.3,05,800/-, Rs.70,400/- and Rs.1,70,000/- respectively in each of the claim petition for which the present appeals are preferred and while passing the aforesaid order has not observed anything in respect to right of Insurance Company to recover remaining amount beyond the amount of sum insured i.e. Rs.50,000/- from the other opponents who are also held responsible to pay the amount claim awarded by the Tribunal jointly and severally and, therefore, interest of the Insurance Company may be protected. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. vs. Firdos Pervez Mysorewala and others reported in 2003 (2) GLR 1684 , Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Shantaben Wd/o. Deceased Kantibhai Punjabhai Vankar and others vs. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel and others reported in 2012 (3) GLR 1985 and the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 491 . Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 491 . 3.2 By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, he submitted that though the entire amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company while preferring these appeals, in view of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of Full Bench of this Court, this Court may consider the same and pass appropriate order permitting Insurance Company to recover the additional amount which is beyond sum of Rs.50,000/- which was insured from the insured. 4. Learned advocate Ms.Vasavdatta Bhatt appearing for Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation could not dispute the aforesaid view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court and could not produce any other judgment taking any contrary view and submitted that in view of judgments relied upon by Mr.Shah for the appellants appropriate order be passed. 5. Rest of the opponents though are served have chosen not to appear before this Court. 6.1 I have considered the judgments relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Shah for the appellants and have perused the documents on record. 6.2 The fact remains that the entire amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company, however, the Insurance Company’s liability is limited to Rs.50,000/- and though the entire amount has been paid, now the question is that whether once the entire amount has been paid by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is entitled to have the benefits of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court or not. 6.3 In similar set of facts, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. vs. Firdos Pervez Mysorewala and others (supra), in para: 13, observed as under: “13. The plea that the decision in Amrit Lal Sood (supra) has been overruled by five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. M. Jaya and Ors., 2002 (2) SCC 278 , has no substance. In fact, after referring to the said decision and also the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Constitution Bench has observed in Paras 10 & 11 of the reported decision as under :- "10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood it is clear that the view taken by the Court is no different. Ltd. (supra), the Constitution Bench has observed in Paras 10 & 11 of the reported decision as under :- "10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood it is clear that the view taken by the Court is no different. In this decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore is referred to. It is held : (i) that the liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer contained in the policy; (ii) there is no prohibition for an insured from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the gratuitous passenger could also be covered; and (iii) in such cases where the policy is not merely statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to determine the liability of the insurer. Hence, the Court after noticing the relevant clauses in the policy, on facts found that under Section 11(1)(a) of the policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any person". The expression "any person" would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in it. Further, referring to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi it was observed that the said decision was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Act. As such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit Lal Sood case as the terms of the policy were wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the specific clause in the policy being wider, covering higher risk, made all the difference in Amrit Lal Sood case as to unlimited or higher liability. The Court decided that case in the light of the specific clause contained in the policy. The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the statutory requirement, an unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the statutory requirement, an unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of, the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible. 11. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any conflict on the question raised in the order of reference between the decisions of two Benches of three learned Judges in Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood aforementioned, and on the other hand, there is consistency on the point that in case of an insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, the liability of the Insurance Company is neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory liability fixed under Section 95(2) of the Act. In Amrit Lal Sood case the decision in Shanti Bai is not noticed. However, both these decisions refer to the case of Jugal Kishore and no contrary view is expressed." The above Paragraphs quoted from the decision of the Constitution Bench would indicate that the judgment in Amrit Lal Sood (supra) is not overruled at all. Further, five-Judge Constitution Bench had no occasion to consider the avoidance clause in the insurance policy which is considered in Amrit Lal Sood (supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Applying the principles laid down in the above-referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case and more particularly to the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy Exh. 51, this Court is of the opinion that though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. Ltd. (supra). Applying the principles laid down in the above-referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case and more particularly to the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy Exh. 51, this Court is of the opinion that though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire award amount to the claimant and upon making such payment, the Insurance Company can recover the excess amount from the insured by executing the award against the insured to the extent of such excess amount as per Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.” 6.4 Similarly, the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Shantaben Wd/o. Deceased Kantibhai Punjabhai Vankar and others vs. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel and others (supra), in para:44, observed as under: “44. In the result, the appeals of the claimants are partly allowed. While not disturbing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in each of the appeals, we modify the respective orders of the Claims Tribunal insofar as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned. While still upholding the limited liability of the Insurance Company of Rs.50,000/-, the Insurance Companies concerned are directed to satisfy the entire award of the Claims Tribunal in respective claim petitions. However, it will be open for the Insurance Companies to recover the compensation deposited by it before the Claims Tribunal in excess of Rs.50,000/- from the owners of the motor vehicles involved in the accidents. Insurance Companies shall deposit such amount with the respective Claims Tribunal within a period of eighty weeks from today. Upon such receipt, the Claims Tribunal shall deposit with any Nationalised Bank, 75 per cent of the additional amount so deposited by the Insurance Company under this order with proportionate costs and interest for a period of five years with usual terms and conditions. Remaining 25% of the amount with proportionate cost and interest shall be released in favour of the claimants through account payee cheque after due verification.” 6.5 Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and others (supra), in paras: 9 and 10, observed as under: “9. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and others (supra), in paras: 9 and 10, observed as under: “9. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore is of no help to him inasmuch as in those cases the effect of judgment in Amrit Lal Sood's case has not been considered. In Shanti Bai case the Court was dealing with the effect of a comprehensive policy vis-a-vis the liability of the insurer in respect of third party risk on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle and found that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability only on account of entering into a comprehensive policy. It was pointed out that the comprehensive policy only entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered upto the estimated value of the vehicle which did not mean the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becoming unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore & Ors. (supra) this Court observed that the liability under the policy could not exceed the statutory liability under Section 95 of the Act only on the ground that the insured had undertaken Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle. The payment of higher premium on that score, however, did not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk became unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case we find that despite holding the liability under the policy limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not unjustified in directing the appellant-company to pay the whole of the awarded amount to the claimants on the basis of the contractual obligations contained in clauses relating to the liability of the third parties and avoidance clause. However, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in rejecting the right of the appellant- company to recover from the insured the excess amount paid in execution and discharge of the award of the Tribunal.” 7. However, the Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in rejecting the right of the appellant- company to recover from the insured the excess amount paid in execution and discharge of the award of the Tribunal.” 7. Considering the facts of the present case, the ratio of the judgments relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Shah for the appellants is applicable in the facts of the present case also. In the instant case also, the policy is limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. However, the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal but in absence of there being any direction which would permit the Insurance Company to recover the remaining amount from the Insured, the situation has cropped up that today as against sum of Rs.50,000/- the Insurance Company has to deposit much more amount than what was the sum insured and, therefore, in view of aforesaid judgments the Insurance Company is required to be permitted to recover the excess amount from the Insured by executing the award against the Insured to the extent of such excess amount. 8. In view of the same, it is directed that Insurance Companies are permitted to recover the excess amount than the sum insured from the insured persons pursuant to the award dated 29.02.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) in a group of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.85 of 1986 (Main) and allied matters. 9. With the above observations and directions, all these three First Appeals are partly allowed.