The liability of an insurance company for compensation in case of death or bodily injury to passengers in a motor vehicle accident is limited to Rs. 5,000 per individual passenger, as per Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, dated October 6, 1975. As a sequel to an accident on November 18, 1971, one Badri Prasad, a passenger in the vehicle, died. The heirs of the deceased, respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 arid 3a, filed a claim petition for compensation before the Tribunal. After contest by the two appellants, owner and driver, of the vehicle and by the insurance company, respondent No. 4, the Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 42,000, apportioning the amount to be paid to each of the heirs. Interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum and proportionate costs were also granted. The Tribunal, however, specified that the liability of the insurance company would be Rs. 5,000 only. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly stated are as follows : Badri Prasad was a member of a marriage party travelling in Bus No. USU 518 from village Kharela to Garotha on November 18, 1971. Noor Mohammad was the owner of the bus and the bus was being driven by one Mohammad ismail. It met with an accident three miles from Mauranipur, at about 4. 30 p. m. with the result that injuries were received by many of the passengers, but Badri Prasad received serious injuries, inasmuch as he had injuries on his head, chest, ribs, lungs and fractures on many parts of his body. He was taken to Chhatarpur hospital, where on arrival he was declared dead. His body was thereafter taken for post mortem examination. A notice was served on the owner of the vehicle but to no avail. Even the name of the insurance company was not disclosed.

( 3 ) IT was stated in the claim petition that Badri Prasad was the sole breadwinner of the family and had an income of Rs. 1,250 per month. He left behind his widow, respondent No. 1, two sons and a daughter, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 3a. One of the sons was minor and another was barely 18 years of age. It was also stated that the driver was driving the bus rashly and in great speed and the accident occurred when the bus struck a roadside tree. Compensation was claimed from the owner, driver as also from the insurance company, respondent No. 4.

( 4 ) THE defence of the appellants was that they were not responsible for the accident or the resultant death of Shri Badri Prasad. The accident was due to a tyre burst caused by a boulder on the road and the bus going out of control. This bus was not being driven rashly, but on the contrary, it was being driven at a normal speed with all care and caution. It was urged that the appellants Nos. 1 to 3a were not legal representatives of Shri Badri Prasad, deceased; Smt. Leela pathak was neither the heir nor the legal representative of the deceased and she had no right to move the application. She was married and not living with the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 70 years and he was a liability for the family members because of his old age. The income of the deceased shown in the claim petition was excessive and imaginary. Lastly, it was urged that the amount claimed as compensation was excessive and, in any event, the insurance company was liable to pay the same.

( 5 ) THE insurance company, defendant, respondent No. 4, raised a preliminary objection that the claim petition was not made within time and was liable to be dismissed and the liability of the insurance company under Section 95 of the M. V. Act, 1939, was limited to Rs. 5,000 only. The insurance company further denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,250 per month. Rest of the objections of the insurance company proceeded more or less on the same ground as that of the other two defendants.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal during the course of the trial recorded oral evidence and took on record documentary evidence. Nine witnesses were examined for the appellants and three for the defendants. The Tribunal framed the following two issues : " 1. W