The limit of liability of an insurer under a policy of insurance covering third party risks is Rs. 50,000/-.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of this Insurance Company and it is directed against the award dated August 27, 1975 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Calcutta.

( 2 ) ON February 8, 1971 at about 8 A. M. , the respondent was knocked down by a lorry bearing No. WBL 8468 near the junction of Diamond Harbour Road and Mayurbhanj Road, Calcutta. The respondent suffered compound fracture' of right leg and several other injuries on his person. He was treated in the Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital as an indoor patient from February 8, 1971 to May 29, 1971 and also from June 19, 1971 to July 3, 1971. He made an application under Section 110a (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 praying for payment of compensation. It was alleged that he incurred expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- for his treatment. Further, it was alleged that the lorry in Question was driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and" it suddenly came from behind and knocked the respondent down Who was on a cycle and proceeding towards north. The respondent was aged 45 years on the date of his accident and was earning Rs. 500/- per month as a tailor and order supplier in ships on Java Bengal Shipping Line. He claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE owner of the lorry did not appear in the proceeding and contest the claim of the, respondent. It appears that at the instance, of the learned Tribunal, the appellant was served with a notice of the proceeding. The appellant entered appearance and filed its defence. Further, the appellant cross-examined the witnesses examined, on behalf of the respondent with the permission of the learned Tribunal. The appellant denied that the respondent received the injury due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The claim of the respondent for compensation to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- was also denied.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal; after considering the evidence on record, came to the finding that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question by the driver thereof. It also held that the respondent was earning Rs. 400/- per month at the time of the accident, and that he was permanently disabled for any job that required free movements. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 60,300/-in favour of the respondent. Of the said sum, Rs. 50,000/-was directed to be realised from the- appellant and the balance sum of Rupees 10,300/- from the owner of the vehicle. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Biswajit Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of the respondent was Rs. 400/- per month at the time of the accident. It is the evidence of the respondent Khudiram Dutta, who examined himself as P. W. 6, that he used to earn Rs. 250/- to Rs. 350/- per month as a tailoring contractor under the Java Bengal Shipping Line. His total monthly income was Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/ -. P. W. 7 Sudhir Kumar Dutta, a tailor-hawker in the ships, said that the respondent was a tailor in the ships. In his cross-examination, he said that he did not know the income of the respondent which varied from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- per month. Much reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on this statement of P. W. 7. It is contended that the evidence referred to above does not support the finding of the learned Tribunal that the respondent had an income of Rs. 400/- per month. In our opinion, there is some substance in the contention. The evidence shows that the income of the respondent was not uniform. According to the respondent himself his total monthly income was between Rs. 300/- and Rs. 400/ -. In our view, it will not be correct to say that the respondent had a monthly income of Rs. 400/ -. We think that in such a case, it will not be unreasonable to take the average of the minimum and the maximum income of the respondent, and such average comes to Rs. 350/ -. We, therefore, hol