The liability of an insurance company under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in a claim for compensation by the heirs of an employee against the employer, is limited to the extent of the employer's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, unless the insurance company has accepted extra-premium to cover the liability beyond the statutory limit.

1. THIS appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against the award dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, burdwan, in M. A. C. Case No. 85 of 2004 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,60,500/- to the claimants to be paid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

2. BEING dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.

There is no dispute that the victim was the "khalasi" of an oil-tanker which collided with a lorry resulting in his death. In the claim-application under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants, his heirs and legal representatives, however, made the owner of the oil-tanker and its insurer as parties to the proceedings without impleading either the owner or the insurer of the lorry as parties. The claimants alleged that the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000/- a month, as an employee, from the owner of the oil-tanker.

3. THE claim-application was contested both by the owner of the oil-tanker and its insurer by filing separate written statement.

4. AT the time of hearing, the owner of the oil-tanker as a witness admitted that the victim was his employee who used to get Rs. 3,000/- a month in lieu of his service.

The learned Tribunal below, however, was of the view that it was impossible to believe that a Khalasi could get a sum of Rs. 3,000/- a month as salary and accordingly, held that he should be treated to be a daily-labour having income of Rs. 60/- a day and on the basis of the assumption that he could get 25 day's work in a month, calculated his income to be Rs. 1,500/- a month and by applying the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act with the aid of the multiplier of 13 came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get Rs. 1,60,500/-

5. BEING dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.

6. AFTER hearing Mr. Banik, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, we are unable to approve the approach of the learned tribunal in the facts of the present case. In the case before us, the claimants have prayed for compensation under Section 163a of the Act against the employer of the victim by making the insurer of such vehicle as a party. Such employer has admitted in his deposition that the victim was his employee and used to get Rs. 3,000/- a month. In such circumstances, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary adduced by the Insurance Company, there was no just reason for disbelieving the version of the owner of the vehicle itself. It appears that the accident occurred in the year 2004. As observed by the supreme Court in the case of 6m. Laxmi Devi and Ors. v. Md. Tabbar and Anr. reported in (2008)2 T. A. C. 394 (SC) : (2008)2 WBLR (SC) 585 now-a-days, even an unskilled labourer earns Rs. 100/- a day and, thus, there was no absurdity in the claim of the heirs of the victim so as to disbelieve their assertion, when they asserted that their predecessor-in-interest used to earn Rs. 3,000/- a month and the employer has admitted such fact in his deposition.

We, therefore, find that this is a fit case where on the basis of income of Rs. 3,000/- a month and by applying the principles laid down in the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, we should assess the compensation and on that basis, the amount comes to Rs. 3,21,500/ -. In our view, the claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of filing of such application till the date the amount is deposited by the awardees.

7. AT this stage, Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has taken a pure question of law regarding the liability of his client, the Insurance Company. According to him, the present application under Section 163a of the Act hav