1. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 28.2.2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in compensation case No. 85 of 1988 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- and fixed the liability upon the appellant/Insurance C6mpany.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

On 22.2.1988 the deceased Dukhu Hansda was coming from Champua to Jamshedpur by bus bearing registration No. BRS 4450. The bus was over crowded and was being driven rashly and negligently which resulted in an accident and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the case on the ground inter alia that the liability of the Insurance Company under the policy and also under the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor vehicles Act is restricted to Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties assessed the compensation and held that the entire amount is to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company.

3. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned Counsel submitted that the accident took place on 22.2.1988 when the Old Motor Vehicles Act was in force, wherein liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passenger is restricted to Rs. 15,000/-. Learned Counsel drawn our attention to Ext. A which is Insurance Policy and submitted that no extra premium was paid for covering unlimited liability and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in fastening the entire liability upon the Insurance Company. 4. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the liability determined by the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has given liberty to the appellant Insurance Company to realize excess amount from the owner of the vehicle. For better appreciation paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 is worth to be quoted herein below:

The learned lawyer of the O.P. No. 1 has argued that since the vehicle in question was covered under a valid Insurance Certificate at the time of alleged accident, so the entire compensation amount payable in the present case is to be paid by the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It is also argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was also holding a valid driving licence at the time of said accident,. which was renewed upto 24.2.1991 from 26.1.1984, The driver has also authorized to drive H.M.V. as would appear from Ext. B. So the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability.

On the other hand, the learned lawyer of the O.P. Insurance Company has argued that under M.V. Act as amended in the year 1982 the liability to pay compensation in case of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident by the Insurance Company is limited only upto Rs. 15,000/-, in case of death of a passenger of a stage carriage. In support of his contention the learned lawyer of the O.P. Insurance Company has referred case law reported in AIR 1995 SC 1113 and argued that in the said case law it has been held that regarding the liability of Insurance Company to 3rd party risk in case no special contract between the company and the owner of the vehicle to cover unlimited liability- premium @ 12 passenger paid by owner as stated in Tariff of Company to cover liability of accident to passanger Held, policy covered only statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/- and it is immaterial that the Insurance Company has a comprehensive policy.

On the other hand, the learned lawyer of the owner O.P. of the vehicle has argued that from perusal of certificate of Insurance, Ext. A it would appear that in the present case liability of Insurance Company was not limited as nothing has been mentioned in column B of the said policy that liability of the Insurance Co