JUDGMENT
D.C. Dalela, J.
1. Harbans Kaur and claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition on account of the death of Avatar Singh in an accident that took place on 20.9.1985. The appellant is the owner of the offending truck No. RNE 1423 and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the driver and insurer of the said truck. During the proceedings of the claim petition, Harbans Kaur has died and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 pursued the claim petition. It has been alleged that the deceased Avatar Singh was going in his own truck which had full load of bananas from Indore to Amritsar. On 20.9.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. near Baroni Police Station, another truck bearing No. RNE 1423 came from the opposite direction and hit the truck of the deceased on the wrong side of the road resulting in severe injuries to Avatar Singh, who died in consequence thereof. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide its award dated 10.3.1992 held that the accident was the result of the sole negligence of respondent No. 7 who was driving the offending vehicle and it awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,60,000 to the claimants. The liability of insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 only. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant owner of the offending truck has preferred this appeal.
2. The claimants-respondents have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the total compensation.
3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
4. Upon considering the oral submissions made at Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties and the award of the learned Claims Tribunal, I find myself generally in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 that the accident took place on account of the sole negligence and rashness of respondent No. 7 who was driving the offending vehicle No. RNE 1423 and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. From the site-plan, Exh. 4, it is evident that the offending truck hit the truck of the deceased on its wrong side of the road. This goes to clearly indicate that the rashness and negligence were on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the deceased. From the site-plan, Exh. 4, it is further clear that the offending vehicle was found lying in the pit towards its wrong side of the road, while the truck of the deceased has been shown to have been standing on the kacha of its right side of the road. This situation clearly indicates that the rashness and negligence were of the offending vehicle and not on the part of the vehicle of the deceased. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly and correctly decided the issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent No. 7, the driver of the offending vehicle, and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. No interference is, therefore, called for in this regard.
5. From the copy of the insurance policy filed before the learned Tribunal, it is found that a premium of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company for the liability to public risk. It has been admitted before me at Bar by both the sides that Rs. 200 was the premium at the relevant time chargeable for the ‘Act only’ policy, while the premium of Rs. 240 is chargeable in case of liability to third party public risk. This, in my opinion, means that extra premium of Rs. 40 was charged by the insurance company for covering the liability for the death or bodily injury of the third party, and as such, the liability of the offending vehicle would not be as per Act, but would be unlimited. In the case of Draupadi Devi v. Incler Kumar, 1998 ACJ 418 (Rajasthan), this Court has held that:
Be that as it may, even if we accept that Rs. 200 was the premium for the ‘Act only’ policy and Rs. 240 was the premium for the liability to the ‘public risk’, then also it is difficult to hold that Rs. 40 were not collected by the insurer for covering the risk of death or bodily injury of the third party…the only inference that can be drawn is that Rs. 40 were charged extra for covering the liability for the death or bodily injury of the third party…It has to be held that the insurance company had accepted unlimited liability in respect of the death and bodily injury of the third party.
6. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Kakkar, 1993 ACJ 328 (Delhi), it has been held by the Delhi High Court that:
a sum of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company, respondent No. 2, to cover third party liability which premium is more than the ‘Act only’ premium of Rs. 200, as such, I find force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the liability of insurance company would not be as per the Act which is Rs. 1,50,000 but would be unlimited.
7. In the present case in hand, a premium of Rs. 240 has been charged by the insurance company to cover the liability to public risk which is higher than the ‘Act only’ premium of Rs. 200. Therefore, in view of the above decisions, the liability of the insurance company, respondent No. 8, would be unlimited and the insurance company is, therefore, liable to meet out all third party claims and it cannot avoid the liability to pay the awarded amount to the claimants. The insurance company, respondent No. 8, is obviously liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal along with interest thereon, jointly and severally.
8. Coming to the cross-objection filed relating to the quantum of compensation, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 38 at the time of accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age should be 16. The learned Tribunal has, however, determined the multiplier as 20. But the learned Tribunal has assessed the gross income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000 p.m. and has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500 p.m.
9. According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), a higher estimate of income should be made having regard to the future advancement in career and increase in earnings, because it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the existing income of the deceased. In the above case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has estimated a higher sum of Rs. 2,000 p.m. as the gross income when the deceased was drawing only Rs. 1,032 p.m. at the time of accident and the age of the deceased was 39. Therefore, if the higher estimate with regard to the gross income is taken on account of the future advancement in career and increase in earning, the loss of dependency, i.e., the multiplicand would be higher than Rs. 1,500 per month. With higher multiplicand, the multiplier of 16 would result almost in the same figure which the learned Tribunal has calculated with higher multiplier and lower multiplicand. I would, therefore, not like to interfere with the quantum of compensation calculated by the learned Tribunal because the finding and the conclusion of the quantum of compensation of the learned Tribunal do not seem to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. Therefore, the cross-objection with regard to quantum of compensation deserves to be dismissed.
10. No other point has been pressed and argued before me.
11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 8, is also liable to pay the entire amount of compensation along with the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants along with the appellant, jointly and severally and its liability is not limited to Rs. 1,50,000 as directed by the learned Tribunal. To this extent the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified.
12. The cross-objection filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is also dismissed.
13. Other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.