( 1 ) THE question involved in this appeal turns. around the interpretation of the provisions of Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Indian Motor Tariffs (Schedule of Premium) issued by the appellant. That the idea underlying clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is to provide cover with respect to the passengers to be carried for hire or reward, and therefore, the liability of the insurer is to be covered by this clause. Where the policy covers wider risks than those prescribed under Section 95 (2) (b) and that the insurer had undertaken to indemnify the insured for his liability with regard to the death of any person, the Court would be competent to make an award directing the insurer to pay such compensation to the claimant for which the insured is found liable. The question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the liability of the insurer (appellant herein) was restricted to an extent mentioned in the Insurance Policy and/or under sub-section (2) (b) of Section 95 of the Act? Is it that the insurer undertook to indemnify the insured for the liability for and on behalf of insured to a