( 1 ) IN both these appeals, common questions are involved and they arise out of common judgment an award. Upon joint request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) A claim petition came to be filed by the heirs and legal representatives, original-petitioners, appellants in First Appeal No. 241 of 1992, inter alia, contending that they lost their bread-winner in a road accident which occurred on 4. 1. 88. The deceased was travelling on a scooter bearing No. GUJ-982 on National Highway No. 8 near Dabhan and was driving his scooter in slow speed on the correct side. At that time, original opponent No. 1, Shanabhai Prajapati, driving Matador-Tempo bearing No. GRW-2, came with excessive speed and dashed with the scooter on the wrong side, as a result of which deceased Yogesh Chandulal Mehta, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same during the course of treatment. Original opponent No. 1, Shanabhai was the driver, original opponent No. 2, Ishwarbhai Prajapati was the owner of the vehicle and original No. 3, United India Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending Matador-Tempo.

( 3 ) THE deceased was doing the business of engraving and was dealing with electrical goods at Ahmedabad. He was earning Rs. 4000/- per month as per the version of the applicants. Original applicant No. 1 is the father of the deceased, ori. applicant No. 2 is the mother and original applicant No. 3 is the widow and original applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are the minor children of the deceased. The claim petition came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad being MACP No. 241 of 1988 claiming an amount of Rs. 6 lacs by way of compensation for premature and untimely accidental demise of the bread-winner of the family, Yogeshbhai, who was in the prime of his youth, alleging that original opponent No. 1, driver of the Matador-Tempo was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident.

( 4 ) ORIGINAL opponent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file written statement, whereas, original opponent No. 3, insurer, contested the claim, inter alia, contending that the liability of the insurer is limited and restricted to only an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the provisions of insurance policy since the policy is an Act policy. The Tribunal upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and evaluation of the evidence led by the parties, passed the impugned award, whereby, the original applicants, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased came to be awarded an amount of Rs. 2,12,000. 00 by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The Tribunal also directed the award to be executed against all the three opponents rejecting the plea of limited liability of the Insurance Company. Original opponent No. 3 has filed First Appeal No. 1435 of 1991 raising the plea of limited liability and questioning the award, whereas, original applicants have filed First Appeal No. 241 of 1992 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were in the original proceedings for the sake of convenience.

( 5 ) TWO contentions are raised in this group of two appeals against the common judgment and award. 1. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it has been contended that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- as the insurance covered was under an Act policy. 2. On behalf of the original-applicants, it has been contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and highly unreasonable requiring upward modification.

( 6 ) WE have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have, also, evaluated the evidence and considered the relevant proposition of law and the latest case law. CONTENTION NO. 1 WITH REGARD TO LIABILITY:

( 7 ) IN our opinion, after having seen the copy of the policy and examining the provi