A comprehensive insurance policy for a private car covers the risk of occupants/passengers, including gratuitous passengers, and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for their death or bodily injury.

( 1 ) DECEASED Manohar Lal Gupta was a contractor and general order supplier. He was also running tea shop. He was travelling in a car bearing No. DLJ-3675. The car was driven by respondent No. 1, Kartar Singh in the claimant s petitioner in the course of his employment with M/s. Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain, Respondent No. 2. The car was going from Najafgarh towards village Nivada. Manohar Lal Gupta was sitting on the rear seat. Two other persons, Shri Tek Chand and Shri Preet were sitting on the front seat with the driver-respondent No. 1. It is found by the Tribunal that the driver was driving at a very high speed and in a reckless manner and while approaching Kakrola bridge hit into the drums on the left side of the road. The driver could not control the vehicle and, therefore, hit it with the tree on the other side. The passengers were seriously injured. Manohar Lal Gupta and other injured were taken to Najafgarh Public Health Centre, where Dr. A. D. Dutta declared Manohar Lal Gupta dead. At the time of his death Manohar Lal Gupta was 32 years old. He was survived of his wife and five minor children from the age of two months to nine years.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal found that the evidence of the eye witnesses Shri Har Pershad Public Witness 4 and Tek Chand Public Witness was quite reliable and on that basis the version of the accident as put by the claimants was established. The Tribunal further found that there was no counter version on the record produced by the respondents to disprove the same. The Tribunal also noted that the respondents did not produce the driver namely respondent No. 1 who was the most vital witness. On the assessment of the evidence on record the Tribunal found that respondent No. 1 was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident in which Manohar Lal Gupta was killed. The Tribunal further held that the respondents did not produce any evidence to show that respondent No. 1 was not driving the vehicle in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held respondent No. 2 vicariously liable for the loss of life of the deceased. The Tribunal, however, held that Manohar Lal Gupta being a gratuitous passenger there was no liability for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. On the quantum of the damages the Tribunal accepted the statement of the petitioner-claimants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 700. 00. After deducting a sum of Rs. 250. 00 as his pocket money the Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency at Rs. 450. 00 or Rs. 5400. 00 annually. On consideration of the history of longevity in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal held that Manohar Lal Gupta could have lived at least upto the age of 65 years but the Tribunal held that the multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the case. After making deductions for lump sum payments, the Tribunal award the compensation of Rs. 64,260/. The Tribunal did not allow any interest on the said amount.

( 3 ) TWO cross-appeals were filed, one by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation and the other by respondent No. 2, the owner. Considering the evidence on record, the counsel for respondent No. 2. the owner could not advance any convincing arguments as to why the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be accepted. I have gone through the evidence on record ana I am satisfied that the Tribunal was right as regards its findings on the version of the accident and also as regards the fact that respondent No. 1-driver committed the said accident during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2, the owner. It must be particularly noted that respondent No. 2 did not produce the driver who was the crucial witness in the case. The only question which was seriously argued was whether respondent No. 2, the owner, was liable or whether Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 was liabte.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the jud