G.P. Mittal, J.

1. These two Cross-Appeals (FAO No.394/1999 and FAO No.494/1999) arise out of a judgment dated 21.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby the Insurer’s plea of limited liability to the extent of `50,000/-was rejected while awarding a compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in FAO No.394/1999 (who are the legal representatives of deceased Mohinder Singh) shall be referred to as the Claimants and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(who is the Appellant in the Cross-Appeal FAO No.494/1999) shall be referred to as the Insurer.

3. A Claim Petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) was preferred by the Claimants alleging that on 14.06.1980 the deceased Mohinder Singh was driving his car No.7497 from Mehrauli to his house in Nangal Devat. At about 8:30 pm, a bus No.DEP 2322 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Hukam Chand came from the opposite direction and hit the car with a great force due to which the car was dragged to some distance. Mohinder Singh suffered injuries which proved fatal. It was claimed that the deceased was engaged in agriculture. He owned 10 Killas of land and was earning Rs.2,000/-per month. The deceased was survived by a widow, five minor children and aged parents.

4. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased’s income to be Rs.2,000/-per month, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, applied a multiplier of ‘12’ to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.1,92,000/-. On adding a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium, an overall compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-was awarded. The Claims Tribunal held that a premium of Rs.426/-was paid as against the basic premium of Rs.84/-applicable for an ‘Act only policy’ and thus the Insurer’s liability was unlimited.

5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

(i) The future prospects of the deceased were not considered;

(ii) Multiplier of ‘13’ ought to have been adopted instead of ‘12’ selected by the Claims Tribunal;

(iii) 1/3rd deduction towards the personal and living expenses was excessive;

(iv) The Claimants were not to be blamed for delay in the disposal of the case and the award of interest for a period of ten years only, as against the entire period for which the Claim Petition remained pending was unjustified.

6. On the other hand, the grounds raised by the Insurer are that the Claims Tribunal erred in concluding that the Insurer’s liability was unlimited. A sum of Rs.426/-was charged as basic premium and an additional premium of Rs.39/-was required to be paid to make the policy unlimited which was not paid in this case and thus, the liability was limited to Rs.50,000/-.

7. In order to prove the deceased’s income, the Claimants examined Beerwati who testified that the deceased was an agriculturist and he used to give her Rs.2,000/-per month. She testified that her husband died at the age of 40 years. The Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased’s income to be Rs.2,000/-per month to compute the loss of dependency. The said finding is not challenged by the Insurer. The deceased was an agriculturist. As per the averments made in the Petition, he owned 10 acres of land, whereas evidence was adduced to the effect that he had a joint holding of 300 bighas of land. Although, the Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased’s income to be Rs.2,000/-per month which finding, as stated above, has not been challenged by the owner or insurer, the Claims Tribunal, however, did not give any basis for accepting the deceased’s income to be Rs.2,000/-per month. In case of death of an agriculturist, the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the Claimants as his legal heirs. The actual loss to the legal representatives is for the loss of supervisory services or the manual work carried out by the deceased. No evidence was adduced as to what was the value of the services ren