The liability of an insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act is not limited to the statutory minimum amount specified in Section 95(1)(b), but can be increased by contract.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the LR s of deceased Sardar Amarjit Singh Sawhney for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 14,834. 00 while the claimants had claimed the compensa- tion of Rs. 2,00,000. 00. The deceased Amarjit Daljit Sawhney vs. Jagtar Singh, etc. Singh was 28 years old at the time of the accident. He had completed the I. T. I. Certificate Course and was working as a Fitter. He had received a certificate of best craftsman in 1965. His salary at the time of the accident was Rs. 350. 00, He is survived by his widow and one child.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1, was the Driver of the vehicle belonging to Respondent 2. Respondent 3 is the Insurance Co. On 18. 1. 1968 at about 7 P. M. the deceased was attending to his work at the back side of Gokhley market near the workshop of Aya Singh within the limits of Police Station, Subzimandi, Delhi. Respondent 1, Jagtar Singh, who was driving truck No. DLG-5945 reversed the truck in a great speed. There was nobody behind the truck to warn the Driver or to guide him. The truck knocked down the deceased. Amarjit Singh received grievous injuries and was rushed to Irwin Hospital. Dr. Bishnu Kumar (PW-8), Head of the Deptt. of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, conducted ? from the external injuries the deceased had suffered extensive rupture of liver 16xl5x8cms area on the right upper surface and the blood was present in the abdominal cavity. The Doctor further opined that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to the rupture of liver caused by blunt force injury in that region. Amarjit Singh died in the hospital next day. Cross Objection is filed by the D. T. C. in this court. Before the Tribunal a common w/s was filed by Respondent 2, the owner and Respondent 3, the Insurance Co. In fact the defence was conducted by the Insurance Co. on its behalf and on behalf of the owner.

( 3 ) I was taken through the evidence at the time of hearing. 1 am satisfied with the assessment of evidence by the Tribunal. The evidence of the eye witnesses and the Doctor confirmed the version of the claimants. I have no hesitation in accepting the findings of the Tribunal. After considering the w/s and evidence of the respondents the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondents had totally failed to establish their version of the accident. I agree with the findings of the Tribunal. I hold that Amarjit Singh died because of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent I during the course of employment of Respondent 2.

( 4 ) AMARJIT Singh was drawing Rs. 350. 00 p. m. at the time of the accident. He was a qualified Fitter. He was only 28 years old at the time of his death. He was working as a Supervisor (Technical ). PW-5. Gurbachan Singh and PW-6. Bhupender Singh had stated that his monthly income was Rs. 350. 00 and Rs. 400-450 respectively. As no documentary evidence was produced the Tribunal concluded that his monthly earning was Rs. 275. 00. The Tribunal held that the deceased must be spending Rs. 125. 00 on his own maintenance and contributing Rs. 150. 00 p. m. to the family. The Tribunal took life expectancy of fifteen years. After making the deductions for the Insurance amount of Rs. 5,000. 00, Rs. 3,000. 00 lying in the Savings Bank Account and 15 per cent deductions for lump sum payment the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14. 834. 00 as compensation. The approach of the Tribunal is wholly unsatisfactory and untenable in law. To take the life span of 15 years for a young man of 28 years doing Fitter s job was most unreasonable. Even by the normal expectancy of life Amarjit Singh would have certainly lived for another 30 to 35 years. He was a qualified Fitter and there is no reason to believe that he was not earning about Rs. 350. 00 p. m. as a Supervisor (Technical ). Even the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labour are about Rs. 350. 00 p. m. Technical hands, such as