Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra in MACP No. 689 of 2012, dated 27th January, 2012 by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,36,500/- to the claimants payable by the appellant.

3. The appellant is an insurer of the offending Bus, bearing registration No. U.P.-86-9544. In an accident, which took place on 14th August, 2010, between the aforesaid offending Bus and the Motorcycle, bearing registration No. U.P.-80-BK-2557 being driven by the deceased, Padam Singh @ Pappu, who was going from Fatehabad to his village alongwith his known person, at Meerpura Turning on Agra-Bah road, in which the deceased, Padam Singh, suffered grievous injuries and while taking to the Hospital for treatment, on the way, he died. One Ajay Pal Singh was the owner of the Bus. The said vehicle had been given on hire to Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation (in short UPSRTC) under the agreement. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs on the ground that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus. The 22 years old deceased was carrying on of milk business, earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month.

4. The Tribunal, however, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, relating to the income of the deceased, has estimated the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, having regard to the age and applying multiplier of 18, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298, estimated the compensation at Rs. 4,32,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded the compensation at Rs. 4,500/= under other heads. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 4,36,000/-.

5. In the present case, there is no dispute about the accident and involvement of the offending Bus.

6. The only submission pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was given by the owner of the vehicle to the UPSRTC, under the bipartite agreement, in which the appellant was not the party. The Bus was in the possession of the UPSRTC and, therefore, in view of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the UPSRTC was the owner of the vehicle and as such was liable to pay the compensation. Since there was no agreement between the appellant and the UPSRTC and in the bipartite agreement, the Insurance Company was not the party, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the liability of the UPSRTC.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that under the Indian Motor Tariff (in short IMT-44), it has been provided that in case if the insured vehicle is let out on hire, the negligence of the owner/hirer would be indemnified by the Insurance company only upon payment of additional premium. He referred IMT-44, which reads as follows :

“IMT-44 Indemnity To hirer-package policy-negligence of the owner or hirer

It is hereby declared and agreed that in consideration of payment of additional premium of Rs. .....the insurer will indemnify any hirer of the vehicle insured loss, damage and liability as defined in this policy arising in connection with the vehicle insured while let on hire.

Provided that any such hirer shall as though he/she were the insured observe fulfill and subject to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy in so far as they apply.”

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Indian Motor Tariff or I.M.T. (as it is commonly known) are issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, which is a statutory body constituted under Section 64 (U) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Section 64 (U) (c) of th