The liability of an insurance company under a motor vehicle insurance policy is not limited to the amount specified in Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, if the policy terms provide for a higher limit of liability.

S.K. Chawla, J.

1. In support of this appeal by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the amount of award, it was contended that the monthly income of deceased Deendayal, who was a worker in permanent employ of J.C. Mills at Gwalior, was only the Rs. 906.40 per month as per income certificate Ex. P. 3, and not Rs. 1200/- or 1300/- as wrongly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Even so, the prospects of advancement in future career also needed to the taken into consideration arriving at the figure of income of the deceased. See General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Ors. in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176. There was evidence that had the deceased been alive, he would have got like other permanent workers, monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month on the date of the evidence adduced in the case. No exception can, therefore, be taken, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1200/- or 1300/- and deducting nearly 1/3rd as living expenses of the deceased, in estimating the loss of monthly dependency to be Rs. 800/- or Rs. 9600/- on annual basis.

2. It was further contended in support of the appeal that a lower multiplier of 12 should have been chosen instead of 16, as was done by the Tribunal. On the other hand, in support of the cross objection filed by the claimants claiming enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,60,000/-. it was contended by learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents that proper multiplier that should have been chosen should have been 24. Certain decisions were cited from both the sides to support their contention with respect to the multiplier. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions. They are decisions being instances of particular awards in individual cases. The latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Susama Thomas (supra) is specifically on the point of multiplier, wherein notice has been taken of the practice of the English Courts, according to which the multiplier does not ordinarily exceed 16 as the maximum. There is also a D.B. decision of the High Court in Asha Devi's case in 1988 J.L.J. 485 laying down that if the deceased was in his 20s the proper multiplier should be 16 while if the deceased was between 30s and 40s the proper mutliplier should be 15. In the present case, the deceased was in his 30s at the time of the fatal accident. We do not think that the multiplier of 16 taken by the Claims Tribunal was either to low or too high to need interference.

3. The above discussion disposes of the appeal. This brings us of cross objection filed by the claimants claiming enhancement, as already indicated, of Rs. 3,60,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance, for reasons already given, the figure of the multiplier. But apart from the compensation on account of loss of dependency, the claimants, including the widow of the deceased, were entitled to compensation for loss of the estate as also for loss of consortium confined to the widow. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) the Supreme Court awarded sums of Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of the estate and loss of consortium. We find it just and proper to award Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants for loss of the estate of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- in place of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, for loss of consortium in the case of claimant/widow of the deceased.

4. The learned Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 10,500/-, said to have been received by the widow of the deceased as ex gratia payment. There was no evidence that the said payment was made because it was a condition of the contract of the service and was payable only on the death of the employee. There was nothing in the evidence to negative the position that the payment was on charitable grounds "on the occasion of the death" and not an advantage, "by reason of the death". The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in deducting the said amount of ex gratia payment from the amount of compensation. Thi