The charging of an extra premium by an insurance company and the leaving blank of the column regarding the limit of liability in a policy indicate that the insurance company has accepted unlimited liability for the death or bodily injury of a third party.

1. - The above mentioned three appeals have arisen out of the award dated 7.7.1988 passed in Claim Case Nos. 62 and 63 of 1983. Appeal Nos. 244 and 243 of 1988 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award and appeal No. 623 of 1992 has been preferred by the owner for holding that the insurance company is liable for the entire amount.

2. The accident occurred on 17.10.1982 on Jaipur-Sambhar road. Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar were going on scooter No. RRB 6515. Anil Kumar was riding on the pillion. Truck No. RSC 4494 driven the award dated 7.7.1988 passed in Claim by Joginder Singh, hit the scooter from behind with the result that scooter came under the truck and Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar, both received fatal injuries. They died on the spot. The legal representatives of Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar filed separate claim applications. The owner and driver did not appear despite service. Insurance company took legal objections. One of the legal objections was that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- by virtue of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The learned Tribunal framed four issues. Claimants Draupadi Devi, Deen Dayal, Shyam Narain and Nirmala Devi entered into the witness-box and examined Ramavtar, AW 2 and Dr. CM. Mahesh Rs. wari, AW 3. In rebuttal, the insurance company examined M.L. Tehriya and B.P. Arya. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held under issue No. 1 that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. Under issue No. 2, Rs. 3,54,000/- were decreed in Claim Case No. 62 of 1983. Rs. 72,000 were decreed in Claim Case No. 63 of 1983.

4. Mr. Mathur has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500/- p.m. only in Claim Case No. 62 of 1983. According to him the loss of dependency should have been assessed at least at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to support the judgment of the learned Tribunal.

5. I find force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

6. The learned Tribunal has observed at page 5 of the judgment that the certificate, Exh. 8, produced by the claimants indicates that the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,400/- p.m. However, in the very next paragraph, the learned Tribunal has observed that the loss of dependency was only Rs. 1,500/- p.m. It is not understood as to on what basis, the learned Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at such low figure. As a matter of fact, ⅔rd income of the deceased ought to have been considered as the loss of dependency which comes to Rs. 3,500/- p.m. Thus, the loss of dependency was Rs. 42,600/- p.a. The deceased was 38 years old at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier is 12'. If this amount is multiplied by 12', the loss of dependency works out to be Rs. 5,11,200/-. The learned Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. On adding this amount, the just compensation works out to be Rs. 5,20,200/-.

7. In respect of Appeal No. 243 of 1988, the contention of Mr. Mathur was that grossly inadequate amount has been awarded.

8. The deceased was 21 years of age and was student of B.Com. third year. The two claimants are parents. It was pleaded that besides study, the deceased used to earn Rs. 500/- p.m. by doing typing work. The learned Tribunal has observed that the deceased was bound to marry and in that case, he could not spend more than Rs. 300/- p.m. on his parents and applying the multiplier of 20, a sum of Rs. 72,000 has been assessed as loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has observed at page 7 that there was merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants that the appellant would have become an advocate and certainly could earn more than Rs. 1,000/- p.m. Looking to the family background of the deceased, it can safely be said that he would