JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of [CASE NUMBER]. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 1.7.1987 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in [CASE NUMBER], whereby the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e., the father and mother of deceased [ENTITY]) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 12.9.1983 till date of payment, with a further direction that the insurance company, appellant here, shall be jointly and severally liable to make payment along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that motor bus No. MPB 8755 is owned by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 was working as driver at the time of accident. The accident took place on 21.7.1982. The deceased [ENTITY] aged about 18 years was travelling in the same bus, who got injured and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police and a criminal case was registered against the driver. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (father and mother of deceased [ENTITY]) filed a claim petition on 12.9.1983 with the assertion that the deceased had a brilliant career and they wanted to make him engineer. They have been put to loss of the possible benefit from [ENTITY] and had suffered mental agony because of the death of their son. They claimed Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation. After hearing the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 27,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the direction of fixing the liability jointly and severally on driver, owner and the insurance company. Hence this [CASE NUMBER] by the insurance company.
3. The contention of the insurance company is that this is a case prior to the amendment in the [ACT] and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make payment as per the conditions of agreement and to the extent of statutory liability, i.e., Rs. 15,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) have filed another [CASE NUMBER] and further claimed Rs. 36,000/- over and above the amount awarded, earlier they had claimed Rs. 63,000/-, but later on they amended the memo of appeal and reduced the claim to Rs. 36,000/- as is evident from the office note dated 2.11.1987 made in [CASE NUMBER].
4. The contention of claimants is that the higher multiplier ought to have been used. The possibility of future rise, looking to the brilliant career of the deceased, has not been considered.
5. The claimants have examined CW 1, [ENTITY] and CW 2, [ENTITY], to support the rash and negligent driving of the motor bus. They further examined [ENTITY], claimant himself, CW 3, to show the age and future prospects of the deceased [ENTITY]. The respondents have examined [ENTITY] only to rebut the fact of rash and negligent driving. From the evidence of the two witnesses, CW 1 and CW 2, it appeals that the motor (bus) was overloaded and some persons were allowed to travel by standing on the door and it was because of the excessive speed that the deceased who was allowed to stand on the back door slipped and died. The fact of rash and negligent driving has, therefore, rightly been proved. It has not been seriously challenged also.
6. From the various documents filed by the claimants it appeals that deceased passed the Higher Secondary examination in 2nd Division and Prarambh Exam. of Sanskrit in 1st Division, however, he failed in B.Sc. Part I. From the documents it appears that he was a cricket player and obtained some proficiency. He was a debater, painter and poet also. Thus, he had good future prospects.
7. The learned Tribunal has estimated the age of the deceased to be about 20 years. It has not been disputed. It further estimated the possible income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 300/- p.m. It appears that it has been estimated on the lower side. At present minimum wage of a labourer is more than Rs. 20/- per day. Thus, the possible income of the deceased could not be estimated less than Rs. 600/- p.m. Since he was unmarried he would have spent Rs. 300/- p.m. on his person and could have helped his father and mother to the tune of Rs. 300/- p.m. Of course after 5 to 7 years there was possibility of marriage and that would have increased the burden of expenditure on himself and his wife. However, the future possibility of further rise in the wages was also there. As such the dependency of the claimants should have been estimated to the tune of Rs. 300/- p.m. That comes to Rs. 3,600/- per year. The age of claimant [ENTITY] (father) was 65 years on the date of filing of the claim petition and [ENTITY] (mother) was 55 years. Thus, on an average the dependency of the claimants could not go for more than ten years. In the opinion of this court, therefore, the multiplier of ten ought to have applied and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to Rs. 3,600 x 10 = Rs. 36,000/- as compensation.
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the conditions of the agreement and the provisions of statute. [SECTION] of the [ACT], which is applicable in the present case, provides as follows:
[SECTION] vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment,-
(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; and
(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger.
Though it is also true that because of the additional payment this statutory liability stands enhanced. This point has been dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in [PRECEDENT]. Para 13 of the judgment reads as follows:
(13) Having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendments by [ACT] we hold that the insurer was liable to pay up to Rs. 10,000/- for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and up to Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger in any other case. The judgment of the Kerala High Court against which this petition is filed has followed the above construction. We do not find any ground to interfere with it. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Thus, from the plain reading of the provision above and the law laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that the insurance company could not be made liable for making payment for more than Rs. 15,000.
10. Learned Tribunal had observed that insurance company failed to file copy of the insurance policy, but the same has been kept in the B part of the file, as observed and noted on the ordersheet dated 26.8.1992. Even otherwise the production of insurance policy and the fixation of liability should not be left to technicalities of procedure as insurance companies are required to make payments out of the public money. Reference may be had to a case reported in [PRECEDENT].
11. In the opinion of this court, therefore, it has been proved that insurance company is not liable to pay more than Rs. 15,000/-. As a result the appeal ([CASE NUMBER]) is partly allowed and it is held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 36,000/- with an interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 12.9.1984 till the date of payment. The present appeal, i.e., [CASE NUMBER] is also partly allowed. The appellant insurance company is liable to make the payment of Rs. 15,000/- with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till date of payment. The rest of the amount shall be liable to be paid jointly and severally by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the owner and the driver of the vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs in [CASE NUMBER]. However, the costs in [CASE NUMBER] shall be paid by the owner and driver of the vehicle who have been shown as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in [CASE NUMBER] and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in [CASE NUMBER]. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/-, if certified.