The insurer's liability under Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act is limited to Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger, even if the insurance policy is not produced.

1. :- This judgment will dispose of two appeals viz. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 29/83 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/83. These appeals arise out of an award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal Udaipur, on 31-7-1982.

2. Aggrieved by the award, appeal No. 29/83 has been filed by Sampat Lal, owner of the Bus RJI 3515 and Ramjiwan the driver of the vehicle. Another appeal No. 65/83 has been filed by the insurer of the said vehicle.

3. Shri N.P. Gupta assailed the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal and contended that the finding on issue No. 1 given by the tribunal is not correct. The learned counsel also disputed the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of claimants who are the widow of the deceased and two minor sons. Shri Gupta submits that there is no evidence on record to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the award of the claims tribunal is based on evidence on record and the finding arrived at by the learned claims tribunal is perfectly justified.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to prove issue No. 1, the applicants have examined Chunilal AW 1, Mangi Lal AW 2, Chhoga Lal AW 3, Ramchandra AW 7 and Madan Lal AW 8, all these witnesses were travelling in the bus. The bus RJY 3515 was carrying a Barat on 22-2-1977 and all these witnesses were in the bus. They have deposed that when the bus was going on from Gangapur to Bhilwara at one point the vehicle took a sharp turn even when it was going on with a high speed, consequent, whereof the accident had occurred. In the accident Ganpat Lal died. I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. The finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is based on the testimony of these witnesses, I, therefore, find no force and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and affirm the finding of the learned tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent acts on the part of the driver.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded in this case is highly excessive. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency amount at Rs. 200/- per month and adopted the multiplier to be 15. The global compensation was assessed at Rs. 36,000/-. This amount is certainly on a very high side looking to the dependency amount of Rs. 200/-. In Automobile Transport Service (Rajasthan) Private Ltd. v. Deva Lal 1977 ACJ 150 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the sum to be awarded as damages should be equal to cost of purchasing on equity of the relevant amount for the relevant period. This amount if put in the bank, will give an interest which would be more than Rs. 300/- per month. Thus, it would be in excess to the dependency amount of Rs. 200/-. Looking from this angle, the amount of Rs. 36,000/- is on a higher side. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if multiple 10 is adopted it will meet the ends of justice. The amount, on being calculated with 10 multiplier will come to Rs. 24,000/-. In my opinion, Rs. 24,000/- is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.Appeal No. 65/83 filed by Insurer of the Vehicle:

6. On behalf of the appellant Shri B.L. Panwar appeared and submitted that the award dated July 31, 1982, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, is contrary to law. He submitted that learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 5 has completely lost sight of Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the Insurer, in the written statement had taken categorical defence that the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs. 5,000/- only as the bus in question was registered to carry more than 30 passengers but not more than 60 passengers. He also submitted that deceased G