The insurance company is not liable for compensation to gratuitous passengers who are not covered under the insurance policy.

A.S. Tripathi, J.

1. These four appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 1.5.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 48,600 to the heirs of the deceased Bansi. Rate of interest allowed was 10 per cent per annum. For three other persons, who are injured in the accident, the Tribunal had allowed Rs. 15,000/- to each of the injured appellants in the three connected appeals, viz., M.A. Nos. 237, 238 and 242 of 1992. The rate of interest allowed was 10 per cent per annum.

2. All the four appeals are connected together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Misc. Appeal No. 226 of 1992 shall be the leading case.

3. An accident had taken place on 7.7.1985 with truck No. MPW 8476 driven by respondent No. 1 Bharosi. The truck turned turtle and Bansi died on the spot. Three other appellants Chironji, Prabhu and Brijmohan were injured.

4. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and recording evidence, held that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently on account of which the accident had taken place. This finding of the Tribunal is based on evidence and there is nothing to differ from the same.

5. The legal heirs of the deceased Bansi and three injured persons have filed these appeals for enhancement of the award.

6. So far as the compensation awarded to the heirs of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal had found that the deceased Bansi was a labourer and was earning Rs. 35/- per day. The dependency of the seven dependants was calculated to be only Rs. 300/- per month. The earnings of a labourer to be Rs. 35/- per day was not disputed and the same was accepted by the Tribunal in view of the evidence on record. Thus the monthly income was calculated to be Rs. 1,000/-. The dependency of the seven dependants was fixed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 300/-. That is on the lower side. We are of the opinion that minimum dependency which can be accepted on record would be Rs. 400/- p.m. Thus the annual dependency comes to Rs. 4,800/-.

7. The deceased was below 30 years of age. As such the multiplier of 16 is to be applied. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 which is on the lower side. The deceased was aged below 30 years. And therefore, we find that the multiplier of 16 would be just and proper in this case. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 76,800/- which is just and proper compensation for the death.

8. Over and above, Rs. 5,000/- is allowed as consortium to the widow. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 81,800/- to be allowed to the appellants in M.A. No. 226 of 1992, who are the heirs of the deceased Bansi.

9. So far as three injured persons are concerned, their injury was taken into consideration and the medical expenses and loss of work had also been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In view of the evidence on record, the Tribunal had correctly awarded Rs. 15,000/- to each of the injured persons. After assessing the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to differ from the Tribunal on the point of compensation awarded to the injured persons.

10. On the point of interest, Tribunal had allowed only 10 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation awarded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the normal course, the interest should have been allowed at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. We hold accordingly.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that Tribunal had absolved the insurance company, respondent No. 3 from any liability for payment of compensation in this case. The appellants' counsel stressed that liability fixed upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be also extended to the insurance company and the insurance company be equally held to be liable for payment of the said compensation.

12.