( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 5-9-1979 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,718. 00 with cost of the proceedings to the claimants. The Tribunal also directed that the liability of the New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 5 was limited to Rs. 50,000. 00. An award for the balance amount has been passed against respondents I and 2 jointly and severally. The Insurance Company has deposited the said amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 and the claimants are paid that amount. This appeal was listed for hearing on 23-1-1985. Neither the respondents nor the counsel were present. The appeal was allowed by me on that date with enhanced compensation and interest. Subsequently, applications were moved on behalf of the D. T. C. respondent No. 4 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 5 explaining their absence on the date of hearing and further praying for the re-hearing of the appeal. I was satisfied with the explanation given in the said applications and the appeal was therefore set for re-hearing.

( 2 ) ON 25-9-1974 at about 8-30 A. M. Narinder Prakash Sehgal, the deceased was going on his cycle and on the crossing of the Parliament Street and Ashoka Road near the Patel Chowk he was hit by the bus No. DLP 5682 under the service of Delhi Transport Corporation. Narinder Prakash Sehgal died on the spot. These facts are duly proved by the evidence before the Tribunal and need not be repeated here. At the time of the death Narinder Prakash Sehgal was about thirty years old. He was survived by his widow, two minor sons and one daughter. He had also an old father to be supported. At the time of his death he was serving with M/s. Engineers India Ltd. , Parliament Street, New Delhi. His salary was Rs. 826. 00 per month. After deducting one-third amount for his personal expenses the Tribunal came to the conclusion that his annual contribution to the family would have been Rs. 6612. 00. Considering his age as thirty years a multiplier of twenty years has been applied by the Tribunal and on that basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. l,32,240. 00 would be the appropriate amount of compensation. The Tribunal also considered that he was sup porting his wife, three minor children and the old father. The Tribunal has, however, deducted a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 received by the widow from the Life Insurance Corporation and the amount of Rs. 1600. 00 received by way of gratuity and has further deducted a sum of Rs. 19,362. 00 for the lump sum payment.

( 3 ) CONSIDERING the recent decisions of this Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court none of these amounts should have been deducted. The amount of compensation is an attempt at reinstatement in terms of money the loss suffered by the family This includes the personal loss and also the material well being to which the family is deprived. I do not think that the deductions, as made by the Tribunal, were proper and set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal. I, therefore, direct that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. l,32,240. 00 as a compensation to the appellants.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the Respondent No. 5 the Insurance Co. has pleaded that the liability of the insurance company-was limited to Rs, 50,000. 00 only. According to the counsel the liability of the insurance company under Section 96 of the Act is limited to liability as mentioned in Sub clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95. The said liability under Section 95 was restricted at the relevant time to Rs, 50,000. 00. There appears to be some mis-conception about the liability of the insurance company under Section 96. Sections 96 and 95 form part of Chapter VIII which concerns with liability to the third party. Section 94 of the Act makes it compulsory for the vehicles plying on the public road to be compulsorily insured. The object of making insurance compulsory was to see that in all cases where a death or b