JUDGMENT
U.L. Bhat, J.
1. In a collision between a jeep and a bus on 6-9-1980 at 2.30 p.m. the jeep was damaged and the driver of the jeep sustained fatal injuries and died instantaneously. The mother, widow and three minor children of the jeep driver filed M.A.C. No. 203 of 1981 claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the driver, owner and the insurer of the bus. The owner of the jeep filed M.A.C. No. 195/81 claiming Rs. 41,000/- as compensation for the damage caused to the jeep. The claims were resisted. The tribunal held that the accident arose on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus, fixed the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the jeep driver at Rs. 28,000/- and the compensation due to the owner of the jeep at Rs. 27,200/-. The tribunal further directed that the former amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum and costs by the driver, owner and insurer of the bus and the latter amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum and costs by the driver and owner of the bus and the insurer of the jeep. The award in M.A.C. No. 195 of 1981 is challenged separately by the owner of the jeep and the insurer of the jeep. The award in M.A.C. No. 203/81 is challenged by the legal representatives of the deceased jeep driver.
2. Appellant in M.F.A. No. 181 of 1984 (arising out of M.A.C. No. 195/91) contends that the tribunal erred seriously in passing a decree against the insurer of the jeep for the damage caused to the jeep after finding that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus alone. The tribunal has not given by any reason for exonerating the insurer of the bus after finding the driver and the owner of the bus liable. Equally the tribunal has not given any reason for holding the insurer of the jeep liable. On the finding of negligence and on the finding of the existence of policy insurance cover for the bus at the time of the accident, we hold that the insurer of the bus and not the insurer of the jeep is liable.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the insurer of the bus raised a contention before us that the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs. 2,000/- which is the statutory liability as per the law then existing. This contention is rebutted by learned Counsel appearing for the other side. The insurer did not produce any records relating to the insurance policy before the tribunal. The owner of the bus produced a copy of the policy, which is marked as Ext. B3. The policy no doubt indicates that it is an Act policy. At the same time it indicates that regarding liability under, paragraph 2(1)(i) and 2(1)(ii) of the conditions attached to the policy, the limit is upto Rs. 50,000/-. This appears to be consistent with the amount of the premium paid as seen in the first sheet attached to Ext. B3. We therefore find that the insurer of the bus is liable to pay the entire compensation payable on account of the damage caused to the jeep. This disposes of M.F.A. Nos. 131 and 322 of 1984.
4. The appellants in M.F.A. 220 of 1984 are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them as dependents of the deceased driver of the jeep. For future economic loss the tribunal awarded Rs. 23,040/- and on other counts the tribunal awarded Rs. 4,960/-, the total being Rs. 28,000/-. The future economic loss was determined on the basis that the deceased could contribute Rs. 150/- for the expenses of the family. The tribunal adopted multiplier of 16, and deducted 20% towards uncertainties. Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the contribution assessed and the multiplier adopted are too low and deduction of 20% towards uncertanities is unwarranted. There is no dispute that at the relevant time deceased was working as driver of the jeep. In the claim petition it was stated that be was getting monthly emolument of Rs. 300/- and daily bhatta of Rs. 15/-, that is, in all Rs. 750/- per month. This claim was not specifically controverter in detail by the other side. His employer was examined as PW-1, and he deposed to the above facts. It was brought out that he is an abkari contractor using three jeeps including the jeep driven by the deceased, which was treated as spare jeep. The tribunal thought that the work was purely temporary and there may not be work on all days. We do not think the evidence justifies such an opinion. Even if his employer does not continue to be an abkari contractor there would have been no difficulty for the deceased to get an employment as driver elsewhere. The tribunal also did not take into consideration the possibility of the driver’s emoluments increasing. Having regard to all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the tribunal should have assessed the contribution at Rs. 300/- per month. We find no reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted for with the deduction made for uncertainties. This would mean that the compensation awarded has to be increased from Rs. 23,040/-; We fix the compensation payable to the claimants in M.A.C. No. 203 of 1981 at Rs. 51,040/-.
5. Ext. B3 Policy shows that the liability of the insurer in regard to the injury caused to third party is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore the insurer of the bus shall pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate determined by the Tribunal and costs to the claimants in M.A.C. No. 203 of 1981 and the balance amount of Rs. 51,040/- with interest at the rate determined by the tribunal and costs shall be paid by the owner of the bus.
6. The M.F.As are disposed of as follows:
(i) The award passed in M.F.A. No. 195 of 1981, is modified by holding that the insurer of the jeep is not liable to pay any part of the compensation payable and the entire compensation with costs awarded by the tribunal shall be paid by the insurer of the bus.
(ii) The award passed in M.A.C. No. 203 of 1981 is modified by enhancing the compensation to a total amount of Rs. 51,040/-out of which Rs. 50,000/- with interest and costs as awarded by the tribunal shall be paid by the insurer of the bus and Rs. 1,040/- with interest and costs shall be paid by the owner of the bus.
Parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.