The liability of the insurance company is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and not as per section 95(2)(b) of the 1939 Act. The court affirmed the contributory negligence finding and enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants.

DALIP SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 13. 5. 1993 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Dausa, in M. A. C. T. Claim No. 139 of 1989 for the enhancement of compensation awarded to the claimants.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21. 10. 1989 the deceased ramji Lal aged 40 years was travelling towards Dausa on the roof of the bus No. RNA 5330. On account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus who abruptly applied the brakes causing the appellant to fall down, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and consequently died.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for appellants submits that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was assessed at Rs. 750 by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal deducted one-third amount from Rs. 750 towards personal expenses and consequently determined the dependency/contribution for the family at Rs. 500. Learned Tribunal while assessing his monthly contribution to the family as Rs. 500 has applied multiplier of 20 which comes to Rs. 1,20,000 and has also awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, love and affection and an additional amount of Rs. 5,000 towards expenses for the performance of the last rites of the deceased. In all the amount of rs. 1,20,000 + Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 5,000 totalling to Rs. 1,65,000 (rupees one lakh sixty-five thousand) was awarded.

( 4 ) WHILE assessing negligence the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence, inasmuch as the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and as such an amount of Rs. 55,000 was deducted from the award of Rs. 1,65,000 and thus, tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 as compensation to the claimants-appellants.

( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal further held that the liability of the insurance company (respondent No. 3 herein) was limited to rs. 15,000, while determining issue No. 5.

( 6 ) THE first submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants is that even assuming that the learned tri-bunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 750 per month as correct, deducted a sum of Rs. 250 being one-third of the amount towards personal expenses is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this court in the case in Rama Nand v. Lalita Sharma, 1993 ACJ 863 (Rajasthan), has held that in the case of persons having meagre income, it would not be legitimate to expect that the deceased out of such meagre income would be spending an amount of one-third of his income, upon himself when he had such a large family to support. In the instant case the deceased apart from himself has to support eight members of the family and, therefore, could not be expected to spend one-third of the income upon himself.

( 7 ) I am respectful in agreement with the said judgment and views expressed by this court in the aforesaid case of Rama Nand v. Lalita Sharma, 1993 ACJ 863 (Rajasthan), that in the case of persons with meagre earnings it could not be expected that deceased would be spending one-third of the amount upon himself and leaving only two-third income towards supporting such a large family of eight persons other than himself (nine in all ).

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents could not point out any contrary view of this court on the aforesaid proposition. In this view of the matter the deduction of one-third out of Rs. 750 per month made by learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and income as contribution by the deceased is liable to be assessed Rs. 750 x 12 months x 20 years, i. e. , equal to Rs. 1,80,000.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 5 has held that in spite of the fact that the accident took place on 21. 10. 1989, i. e. , after Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has come in