( 1 ) ONE M. Somanna died in an accident, involving the Ambassador Car in which he was travelling, on 11-3-1970. The car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it went and hit a lorry, resulting in injuries to the deceased, leading to his instantaneous death. His legal representatives filed O. P. LNo. 43 of 1970, claiming a compensation of Rs. 30,000 on that account. The claim was made against the owner of the taxi-car (1st respondent) and against the Insurance Company (2nd respondent ). While the 1st respondent remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent defended the action, contending that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the taxi-car. It further denied the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners. The Insurance Company filed an additional counter stating that the taxi-car was licensed to carry only five passengers and that, in fact, it was carrying nine passengers at the time of the alleged incident and, therefore, the 2nd respondent is exonerated of any liability, in that behalf. In any event, it was pleaded that its liability is limited only to Rs. 4,000 under S. 95 (2) (b) of the Act and that, it cannot be made liable for any larger amount.

( 2 ) ON the above pleadings, the Court below framed appropriate issues and, after receiving oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, found (i) that, the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the taxi-car; (ii) the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated of its Statutory liability to pay compensation, merely because more than four passengers were travelling in the said taxi-car at the time of the accident; (iii) that, the Amendment Act (No. 56) of 1969, raising the limit of liability mentioned in S. 95 (2), is not with retrospective effect, an, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable only in a sum of Rs. 4,000; and (iv) that, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 8,550. The said compensation was allocated between the several petitioners. The petitioners (claimants) have, therefore, preferred this appeal claiming enhanced compensation, and contending further that the liability of the Insurance Company is in an amount of Rs. 10,000 by virtue of the aforementioned Amendment Act.

( 3 ) THE first question which we have to decide pertains to the quantum of compensation to which the appellants (claimants) are entitled. The Court below has awarded a total amount of Rs. 8,550. On the material placed before it, the Court below held that the monthly income of the deceased can be put at Rs. 150 and that, out of it, his contribution to the family (i. e. , the petitioners-appellants) can be taken at Rs. 75 per month. The annual contribution towards the family thus came to Rs. 900. Then, it allocated the said amount among the several petitioners (claimants) and, having regard to their expected life-span, the Court below worked out the amount payable to them and then deducted and amount of 10% therefrom on the ground that the amount was being awarded in a lump sum. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, even on the basis adopted by the Court below his clients are entitled to a higher compensation. We are inclined to agree with him. If the monthly earnings of the deceased is taken at Rs. 150, the amount of contribution towards his family could not have been so low as Rs. 75 per month, having regard to the large number of members of the family. The deceased had both his parents alive, a wife, four sons and a daughter. Having regard to this number, we are inclined to enhance his contribution towards his family members by 50%. It would thus come to Rs. 112. 50 Ps. month. The rest of the formula adopted by the Court below for working out the compensation has not been assailed before us. Adopting the said formula, therefore, we hold that the petitioners (appellants) are entitled to an enhancement of 50% on the contribution al