JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.140/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara (the Tribunal), aggrieved by Award dated 02/05/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. The claim petitioner is the owner of BMW car bearing registration no.KL-14-N-777. According to the claim petitioner, on 23/07/2015 at about 03:00 a.m., near Kanjipura at Valacherry, lorry bearing registration no.KL-57-A-3960 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with his car, whereby his vehicle sustained extensive damages. Hence, he claimed Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 4. The first respondent-owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The amount claimed was contended to be exorbitant. 5. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy and denying the factum of the accident. The amount claimed was contended to be exorbitant. 6. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the third respondent. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.27,21,700/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 9. Heard both sides. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal erred in holding that the third respondent/insurer is liable to indemnify the first respondent/the owner of the offending lorry, of the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Heard both sides. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal erred in holding that the third respondent/insurer is liable to indemnify the first respondent/the owner of the offending lorry, of the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. As per Ext.B1, the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs.7.5 lakhs. Hence, if at all the third respondent is liable, the liability is limited to Rs.7.5 lakhs and for the balance amount, it is the first respondent/owner who has to be held liable. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner that Ext.B1 is not an “Act only policy” but a comprehensive/package policy. The first respondent-owner/ insured has paid an additional premium of Rs.1,000/- and hence the liability is unlimited. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictums in Namit Sharma v. Union of India , 2013 (1) SCC 745 and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Sanjay Sharma v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3404. 11. Here it would be apposite to refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. C.M.Jaya , 2002 ACJ 271 : AIR 2002 SC 651 . The question that was referred for consideration of the Bench was - “whether in a case of insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium, in case of payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) or the insurer would be liable to pay the entire amount and he may ultimately recover from the insured? ” After considering various earlier decisions of the Apex Court it has been held that the liability of the insurer is limited as indicated in Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of a third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. In the said case, reference was also made to the dictum in The New India Assurance Co. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of a third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. In the said case, reference was also made to the dictum in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Shanti Bai, (1995) 1 SCR 871 (SC) , wherein it was held that (i) comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit, (ii) that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an "Act only policy”, it is not obligatory for the owner of the vehicle to get it comprehensively insured and (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory limit in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurer's liability unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. 12. Now coming to the case on hand. The accident took place on 23/07/2015. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the present Act as it then stood before the amendment of the year 2019 came into effect from 01/04/2022 reads - “ 147. 12. Now coming to the case on hand. The accident took place on 23/07/2015. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the present Act as it then stood before the amendment of the year 2019 came into effect from 01/04/2022 reads - “ 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 bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized 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 a 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Therefore, as per Section 147 (2)(b), the limit is Rs.6,000/-. I also refer to the relevant portions in page nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.B1 policy, which reads - “ Limits of Liability Under Section II-I(i) Death or bodily injury in respect of any one accident; As per Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Under Section II-I (ii) Damage to third party property in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: 750000/- Personal accident covers for Owner-Driver CSI:Rs.200000 This policy is subject to terms and conditions and IMT Endorsement Nos.printed herein/attached hereto 21,23,28." Imposed Excess 0 Voluntary Excess 0 Compulsory Excess 1000 According to the learned counsel for the claim petitioners, the payment of Rs.1,000/- made under the head compulsory excess, is the additional premium that was paid by the first respondent/owner-insurer and hence the liability of the third respondent/insurer has become unlimited. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the said amount has been paid in the light of IMT endorsements 21, 23 and 28 and that this does not make the liability of the insurer unlimited. 14. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the said amount has been paid in the light of IMT endorsements 21, 23 and 28 and that this does not make the liability of the insurer unlimited. 14. As noticed earlier, going by Section 147 (2)(b), the liability is limited to Rs.6,000/-. However, that does not prevent the parties from entering into a contract by which the insurer can take up a higher liability. In such cases, the liability would be to the said extent alone and the same would not make the liability of the insurer unlimited in respect of the third party. In the light of Ext.B1, I find that the liability of the third respondent/insurer is limited to Rs.7.5 lakhs only with proportionate interest and costs. The claim petitioner is entitled to recover the remaining amount from the first respondent/owner-insured and second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. 15. After the judgment was signed and pronounced by this Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that though an argument was advanced that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit at the time of the accident, this Court has not considered the same and hence the said argument may also be considered. In the light of the submission made, the matter was posted to this day and heard. 16. Heard both sides. 17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent-owner that along with the written statement filed before the Tribunal, a copy of the permit had also been produced, which would show that the vehicle did have a valid permit as on the date of the accident. 18. The copy of the permit that has been produced along with the written statement shall stand marked as Ext.B5. As per the said certificate, permit was valid from 2013 to 09/07/2018. The accident took place on 23/07/2015, which makes it clear that the vehicle did have a valid permit at the relevant time. Hence, the argument that there was no valid permit and so there is a fundamental breach which will exonerate the third respondent is liable to be rejected. Ext.B3 is the registration particulars of the offending vehicle. The accident took place on 23/07/2015, which makes it clear that the vehicle did have a valid permit at the relevant time. Hence, the argument that there was no valid permit and so there is a fundamental breach which will exonerate the third respondent is liable to be rejected. Ext.B3 is the registration particulars of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the contention in the written statement that there was no valid registration certificate for the vehicle is also not tenable.