The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides, and the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of a case in determining liability.

M. Y. EQBAL AND R. K. MERATHIA, JJ.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals, one by the claimants and the other by the insurance company arose out of a common judgment dated 1. 8. 2003 passed in Compensation Case No. 46 of 2001. The claimants-appellants have filed M. A. No. 63 of 2004 for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company has filed M. A. No. 21 of 2004 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by t:he claims Tribunal. In other words, insurance companys appeal is for reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Claims tribunal.

( 2 ) M. A. No. 63 of 2004 was heard on 21. 4. 2006 and this court tried to get the dispute in both the appeals settled through lok Adalat. Learned counsel appearing for the parties were also of the view that a settlement with regard to quantum of compensation should be arrived at so that the amount may be paid to the claimants in the Lok Adalat. In order to comply with the requirements of section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure these two appeals have been taken up together for hearing. But today the appellant insurance company has backed out from its commitment and submitted that in view of a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 acj 1441 (SC), the insurance company has no liability and, therefore, question of payment of compensation to the claimants, who are none else but the widow and minor children, does not arise. We have heard the appeals on merits and the same are; being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) FACTS of the case are that on 5. 5. 2001 the deceased along with his daughter left jamshedpur in a private Maruti car of his colleague bearing registration No. BR 16-N 1758 along with the owner of the vehicle, his wife and sons. When the car reached near a nursing home, it took sudden turn towards right as a result of which the car turned turtle and the deceased was thrown out of the car and he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was a scientist posted at National Metallurgical Laboratory, jamshedpur. He was aged 45 years and was being paid salary of Rs. 16,971. Both the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle filed their show-cause. In the show-cause filed by owner it was stated that at the relevant time the vehicle was insured with the insurance company vide policy No. 31410053424 and hence the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. In the showcause filed by insurance company it was stated that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and so the claim put forth by the claimants is highly inflated.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and, therefore, it is liable to pay the compensation amount. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that although gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 16,971 but his net income, as per salary charts, Exhs. 2 and 2/1, was Rs. 10,444. The Tribunal, therefore, took Rs. 10,444 as net income of the deceased and on that basis it calculated the monthly dependency at Rs. 6,963 after deducting 1/3rd of the amount which was expected to be the expenses of the deceased for his self maintenance. Taking the monthly dependency of Rs. 6,963 the annual dependency has been assessed at rs. 83,556 and by applying the multiplier theory taking 17 years of purchase the total amount of compensation was assessed at rs. 14,30,452. ( 5 ) MR. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the one hand, submitted that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculating total compensation. According to the learned counsel, Out of the total salary of Rs. 16,971 a sum of rs. 5,000 was being deducted by way of voluntary provident fund and, therefore, this amount also ought to have