Insurance policy covering unnamed passengers entails unlimited liability for the insurer in the event of an accident, determining proper compensation requires application of the multiplier method.

1. M.A. (C) No. 602 of 2009 preferred by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and M.A. (C) No. 725 of 2009 preferred by the claimants against the award dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 65 of 2008 are being disposed of by this common award / order.

2. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:
(i) On 24.10.2007, Maruti van (private car) bearing registration No. CG 12 - D 0428, being driven rashly and negligently by Narottam Singh, owned by Radheshyam Dubey and insured by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., met with an accident and Usha Dhruv, an occupant of the car, suffered injuries in the accident. She later on succumbed thereto.
(ii) Husband and minor son of deceased Usha Dhruv preferred claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming com pensation to the tune of Rs.20,18,272. According to the claimants, deceased Usha Dhruv was a Shiksha Karmi.
(iii) The defence taken by the appellant insurance company was that it had covered the risk of unnamed passenger to the extent of Rs.1,00,000 only by charging extra premium of Rs.50 per passenger.
(iv) The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment holding the appellant insurance company as well as driver and / or owner of the vehicle jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.
(v) Feeling aggrieved by the entire liability, the insurance company has preferred the appeal whereas dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have also preferred an appeal.

3. Mr. Amrito Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, by referring to General Regulation 36 of the India Motor Tariff and IMT - 16, would submit that the policy in question is a liability only policy and is not a package policy. Apart from third party risk, the appellant insurance company has also assumed the risk of unnamed passenger, for which, under the regulation, the maximum liability of the appellant insurance company is Rs.2,00,000 and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant insurance company liable for payment of entire amount of award.

4. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for appellants - claimants, would submit that the premium of Rs.250 has been charged by the insurance company for an unnamed occupant of the vehicle without specifying its limit of liability; as per the terms and conditions annexed with the schedule of the policy, the policy was private car package policy covering the risk of occupant of car and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the insurance company. It was further contended that even if the salary certificate is disbelieved for want of its legal proof, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation by applying the multiplier method and by taking into consideration a reasonable income of the deceased and, therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,25,000 also deserves to be suitably enhanced.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

6. The following questions fall for consideration of this court:
(1) Whether under the policy, Exh. NA 1, the liability of the insurance company is unlimited or limited to the extent of Rs.2,00,000 only for the death of an occupant of th