JUDGMENT
Swamikkannu, J.
1. This appeal and Memo, of Cross Objection coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 19th and Friday the 21st day of August 1987 and on this day and Memo, of Cross Objection upon perusing the petition of Appeal and Memo, of Cross Objection the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Asraf Ali for M/s. Raj and Raj Advocates for the appellant in AAO No, 2.51/82 and for the 1st respondent in Memo, of Cross Objection Mr. p. Ramaswamy Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 in AAO No. 251/82 and petitioners in Memo of Cross Objection and of Mr. A. Devanathan Advocate for the 3rd respondent in AAO No. 251/82 and 2nd respondent in Memo, of Cross Objection the court delivered the following judgment. Whether the policy contemplates additional premium or not is the question that arises for consideration in this case. It is common ground that only Rs. 324/- has been paid as premium at the rate of Rs. 6/- per head for 54 passengers who can legitimately travel in the bus. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the words ‘Additional Premium’ that occur in this policy should be given effect to, because third party insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 426/-is contemplated and this is estimated on the basis of IEV (Insurer’s estimated value) to the tune of Rs. 1125/- at the rate of 1/2% and riot and strike to the tune of Rs. 56250 p. Though these words are found in the policy in question, there is nothing on a scrutiny of the policy to show that anything has been paid above Rs 354/-namely the ordinary premium.
2. In this connection Mr. A. Devanathan, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court page 120-A of the Indian Motor Tariffs published by Tariff Advisory Committee, Ador House, 6-K, Dubhash Marg, Fort, Bombay-600 023.
3. Mr. P. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that a memorandum of cross-objection has been filed claiming enhancement of compensation, over and above what had been fixed by the Tribunal,
4. Mr. Mohatned Asraf Ali relied on the following cases, namely, Smt. Manjusha Raha and Ors. etc. B.L. Gupta , Mator Owner’s Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modiand Ors. 1981 ACJ 507 and Raghib Nazim AND ANR. v. Nazeem Ahmed and Ors. 1986 ACJ405.
5. Page 120-A of the Indian Motor Tariffs reads as follows:
Legal Liability for Accidents to Passengers
Vehicles rated under Classes (except B (2) (a) 1 for which
refer to Extra Benefit Item 3 (iii) on Sheet 121) D & E.
(Endorsement No. 13 must be used)
Per Passenger on
Total Licences Passenger carrying capacity.
Any one
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
passenger
15,000
15,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
Any one
50,000
75,000
1,00,000
50,000
75,000
1,00,000
Accident
75,000
1,00,000
1,50,000
1,00,000
1,50,000
2,00,000
Rs.
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.50
8.50
8.50
10.00
10.00
10.00
11.50
11.50
11.50
For unlimited indemnity the existing premium of Rs. 15/- per seat to be maintained.’
6. This appeal has been preferred by the 1st respondent in the claim petition, namely, Udayakumar. He is the owner of the vehicle in dispute. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition (3rd respondent herein) is the United India Insurance Company, Tuticorin. It has put forward a plea that it is not liable to pay over and above the statutory limit that is contemplated by the policy. Petitioners 1 and 2 in the claim petition are respectively the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
7. The Tribunal had held that the petitioner in C.P; No. 204 of 1980 (A. Chockalinga Thevar) was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,000/-and the petitioners in C.P. No. 3 of 1981 (respondents. 1 and 2 herein) were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- each. The Tribunal had further held that the petitioners were entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition tilt date of payment, that the 1st respondent was liable to pay Rs. 5000/- to each of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent was liable to pay Rs. 2,500/- to each of the petitioners.
8. In the instant case, we are concerned with the Award in C.P. No. 3 of 1981. Besides examining herself as PW 3, Thirumathi Shanmughathammal (2nd petitioner in CP 3 of 1981) had examined 2 other witnesses as PWs 2 and 4, namely, Dr. Murugesan and Thiru Vanniperumal Noop-panar. The driver of the bus in question examined himself as RW 1. Exs. A-2 to A-5 hospital chits, Ex. A6 dated 14-4-1981 letter from the District Family Welfare, Maternity and Child Health Officer, Ramanathapuram at Madurai addressed to Dean T.V.M.C. Tirunelveli District Ex. A7 dated 12-8-1980 Certified copy of Express FIR in Crime No. 479 of 1980 Ex. A10 dated 13-8-1980 Certified copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased Arumugam and Ex. All dated 30-6 1980 Transfer Certificate of Arumu-gham and Ex. Bl dated 28-4-1980 copy of Insurance Policy were marked.
9. PW 3 Thirumati Shanmughathammal is the 2nd petitioner in C.P. No. 3 of 1981. She has stated that the age of her son Arumugam was 21 at the time of the accident, that he was earning Rs. 250/- per month and that he would give Rs. 200/- to her for the maintenance of her family and that, his income was Rs. 12/- per day. PW 4 Vanniperumal Mooppanar has deposed that Arumugam worked under him and that he was paying Rs. 12/-per day to him.
10. In the counter-statement, the 1st respondent contends that the 1st respondent’s driver was very careful in his course of driving. He drove the vehicle in a slow speed. To avoid a head-on collision with a lorry which came on the opposite side, the driver of the 1st respondent swered on the left side. But, since the edge of the road was full of sand, the bus fell into the stream.
11. The following points were framed for consideration by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent’s driver (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so, at what amount ?
12. On point No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent’s driver. On point No. 2 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 herein/would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of life of their son Arumugham in the accident. In the result, the Tribunal held that the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 herein, are entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each petitioner for a sum of Rs, 7,500/- that they are also entitled to interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment, that the 1st respondent owner of the bus in question) is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the petitioners and that the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 2,500/-to each of the petitioners.
13. As already mentioned, it is the contention raised on behalf of the owner of the bus in question that the policy is covered by payment of extra premium. Neither a reading of it together with the sum and substance of it as disclosed by the contents of Ex. Bll prove that it is so, namely, that it has come into existence on the payment of an additional premium, nor can it be culled out from the policy that for an extra risk it has come into existence between the parties. Because, it has not been proved that over and above Rs. 6/- per head for the 54 passengers in the bus in question that any amount more than Rs. 324/- (which is for the normal risk) had been paid by the owner of the bus. Therefore, we cannot be carried away by the more mention in the contents of the policy that it is also for additional risk that Ex. B-1 had been issued. A clear reading of Ex. B-1 together with the payment made, namely Rs. 324/- at the rate of Rs. 6/-per head shows that for the death of any one passenger only Rs. 5,000/- can be paid by the Insurance Company and the rest of the compensation which is fixed by the Court has necessarily to be borne by the owner of the bus in the instant case before us. The entries found in Ex. B-l are insignificant and they have absolutely no bearing on the contract committed in Ex. B-l. In the instant case, there is no proof to show that extra premium has been paid. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has to be repelled as untenable and unsustainable, and is hereby held so.
14. From the Tariff (page 120-A) extracted in paragraph 3 of this judgment, it can be seen that for the payment of a small amount of extra coverage, the insured gets a lot of benefits According to Mr. Devanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company this aspect is lost sight of by most of the persons who enter into contracts with Insurance Company. According to him, if there is no payment over and above Rs. 6/-per head, nothing more than Rs. 5,000/ can be given under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, towards compensation. I am in quite agreement with the learned Counsel and hold that the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are correct, and they are hereby confirmed.
15. Now, let me discuss about the enhancement of compensation claimed by the defendants of the deceased Arumugam.
16. It is relevant in this connection to note that the deceased in this case is the eldest son of respondents. 1 and 2 herein. At the time of the accident, he was aged 21. The parents had lost such a son in the prime oj his youth. This Court is of the view that if 20 years multiplier is used, it would not be against the interest of justice and, therefore, such a multiplier is used
17. Besides, attending the school, the deceased was doing carpentry and was earning not less than Rs. 12/- per day. At the same time, he would not have work for all the 30 days in a month. Deducting four Sundays, he would get work for not less than 26 days. At the rate of Rs. 12/- per day, the normal income would be Rs. 200/- per mensem. If 20 years multiplier is used, the normal income would come to Rs. 74,880/-. The petitioners, namely, respondents 1 and 2 are getting a Iumpsum as compensation. Deducting one third of the amount of Rs. 74,880/- for Iumpsum amount, the balance amount comes to Rs. 49,920/-.
18. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants herein by Mr. Moha-med Asraf Ali that the claim made in the cross-objection is Rs. 20,000/- and therefore, this Court is not obliged to grant compensation over and above that sum. On the other hand, Mr. P. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein, would submit that in the main petition, the claim was for Rs, 50,000/- and when this Court has arrived at a figure of Rs. 49,920/-, it is well within the claim made in the main petition. I am unable to reject the contention raised by Mr. P. Ramaswami as wholly untenable or unsustainable. Even in a suit, nothing prevents the court to grant incidental and ancillary relisfs, because a prayer is invariably made, namely, ‘other reliefs that are considered necessary can also be granted’. In the circumstances, this Court considers that the amount due and payable by the persons concerned is Rs. 49,920/- which does not exceed the claim that has been made in the original petition.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that certain deductions should be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased. In the instant case, the deceased is a young boy of 21 years. As per the evidence of his mother (PW ?), he is of a good character and has never indulged in any bad habit or vice. Therefore, there is no necessity for deducting any sum towards personal expenses.
20. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 15,000/-. The total compensation now arrived at is Rs. 49,920/-. Therefore, the enhanced compensation now awarded is Rs. 34,920/-.
21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is allowed to the extent indicated above. The sum of Rs. 5,000/ which is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company has to be necessarily paid within two months from to-day with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till date of payment. Time for payment of court fee by the respondents 1 and 2 herein on the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 34,920/-is one month from today. There will be no costs in both.