The liability of an insurance company under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J. - Claimant-appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated January 31, 1990, whereby they have been awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the accidental death of Balwant Singh son of appellants Surjit Kaur and Sarup Singh, husband of Manjit Kaur and father of Tajinder Singh minor.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on May 18, 1987, at about 7 P.M. deceased Balwant Singh was going on a scooter from Amargarh towards village Bagarian. At that time Harbhajan Singh was driving Oil Tanker/Truck No. PBP 6767 rashly and negligently. Hardip Singh was sitting on the pillion of the scooter. Harbhajan Singh dashed against the scooter of Balwant Singh, who sustained injuries and breathed his last on the spot. Harbhajan Singh respondent was driver of the said offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 was its owner and it was insured with respondent No. 3. Balwant Singh was aged 20 years and was working as Veterinary Pharmacist at Civil Veterinary Hospital Bagarain. At the time of accident his total emoluments were Rs. 1313.50 per month. The claimants are his dependents. They claimed Rs. 5 lacs. with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the respondents.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted their joint written statement and denied their liability for the payment of compensation. They also denied that the accident was caused by the Oil Tanker/Truck which was driven by respondent No. 1 at the time of accident. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if the claimants were entitled to any compensation since the Oil Tanker Truck was insured with respondent No. 3, the compensation could be recovered from respondent No. 3 only. Respondent No. 3 filed its separate written statement and inter alia pleaded that after the accident, no intimation to that effect was given to the company by respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. It was also objected that at the time of accident if respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence, then only the Insurance Companys liability could be considered. Lastly, it was averred that the Insurance Companys liability was limited under section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence the Insurance Company was liable to that extent only.

4. After recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased Balwant Singh was drawing Rs. 1313.50 while working as Veterinary Pharmacist. Claimants dependency was assessed at Rs. 780/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the compensation was awarded and apportioned amongst the claimants in the ratio of 5 (widow), 5 (minor son), 3 (mother) and 2 (father).

Appellants learned counsel, relying on Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others, (1994)107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.), contended that the Apex Court in that case took into consideration the future prospects of promotion of the deceased, aged 38 years, who was drawing Rs. 1032/- per month as salary. The apex Court determined the earning of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs. 1400/- per month and a multiplier of 12 was adopted. He also relied on Smt. Kiran Wati widow v. Hari Singh, (1991-2)100 P.L.R. 555; (wherein deceased was aged 29/30 years; the claimants were widow and two minors; multiplier of 25 was adopted); Master Ullas v. Shri Rajinder Singh, (1993-1)101 P.L.R. 524; wherein deceased, aged 30 years, was earning Rs, 1,300/- and a multiplier of 20 was adopted) and Sukhdarshan Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 112, (deceased was aged 29 years; multiplier of 20 was adopted). Hence he argued that in this case, the claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency at Rs. 780/- per month. The deceased was working as Veterinary Pharmacist and would have got promotion also. Taking that fact into consideration, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs. 2,000/-, claimants dependency should have been deter