JUDGMENT : Yyas Dev Misra, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 24 and 28 of 1976 since they arise out of the same award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur. 2. Honorary Lieutenant Kansi Ram was travelling in bus number PNH 2685 belonging to the Hamirpur Cooperative Transport Society (the Society) on 4th April, 1971. This bus met with an accident at about 7.30 a.m. near village Barara on the way to Hamirpur. The claimants, that is, the widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter, filed a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. The petition was resisted. It was, inter alia, contended that the accident had not taken place due to any negligence of the driver of the bus. The amount claimed was also contested. The insurance company with which the bus was insured averred that their liability did not extend to more than Rs. 2,000/- per passenger of the bus. Various issues were framed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. I need not reproduce them. Suffice is to notice that I am concerned with the questions: (1) Whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver? and (2) What is the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled? Since the Tribunal has not decided about the liability of the insurance company, I have now, if necessary, to decide this liability. 3. Bidhi Chand (P.W. 1) was one of the passengers in the ill-fated bus. He has given the circumstances in which the bus met with the accident. The bus was going towards Hamirpur. The road near village Barara was under construction. It was a kacha one. The danga on the left side of the road had been recently built with the help of round stones. The witness states the bus was going at a high speed and the driver had been told to slow it down. It was being driven in the middle of the road in the track which had been made by the vehicles which had passed earlier. However, the driver after some time took the bus out of this track and started plying on his left side. As the bus came practically to the extreme side of the road near the danga it turned turtle. It rolled four times before it came to a stop. However, the driver after some time took the bus out of this track and started plying on his left side. As the bus came practically to the extreme side of the road near the danga it turned turtle. It rolled four times before it came to a stop. The deceased who was in the bus was thrown out of it and came under the bus and was killed. Similar are the statements of other witnesses travelling in the bus. Bhag Singh P.W. 7 was sitting on a platform from where he saw the accident. He deposes that the bus was not going straight, but was sometimes turning to one side and sometimes to the other. He saw the bus going to its extreme left and rolling down. Man Singh (P.W. 6), S.H.O. of Police Station, Hamirpur stated that the road was 12 feet wide and heavy traffic could pass over it. Indeed some buses passed over this portion of the road after the accident. All the witnesses stated that the bus was overloaded. 4. The driver, Prem Chand, was examined as R.W. 5. He states that the road at the point of the accident was under cutting operation though no labourer was working at that time. He deposes that he was going very slow. He describes the accident thus: when the tyre was on the danga the danga gave way and inspite of my turning the steering inward, it slipped down. The tyre first got slightly stuck up inside the stones on earth which gave way when I tried to extricate it and the danga gave way. 5. It is evident that the driver had taken the bus not only to its extreme left but one of the tyres had actually gone on the danga itself. The question which arises for determination is whether the driver was negligent or rash in taking the bus practically on the danga? Now it is undisputed that not only the road was kacha but it was under construction. But the traffic had already been moving on the road. Indeed it is in evidence that the driver had taken this very bus the previous evening to Awah Devi and had crossed this part of the road. The driver thus knew that the road was not such where either he could drive it at a normal speed or take risk of going to the extreme edge. Indeed it is in evidence that the driver had taken this very bus the previous evening to Awah Devi and had crossed this part of the road. The driver thus knew that the road was not such where either he could drive it at a normal speed or take risk of going to the extreme edge. The very fact that the road was under construction shows that it was expected of each driver to be very careful in driving over this part of the road. It is common knowledge that usually wherever there are dangas there is about 2 feet wide shoulder and this is usually about 2 feet high. In other words the extreme end of the road on which exists a danga is not a part of the road on which a vehicle is supposed to be driven. Why the driver took the bus to the extreme left has not been explained by the driver. He should have realized, as was evident from the condition of the road, that the danga made of round big stones had not been cemented. In these circumstances to allow a tyre of the heavy bus to be on the danga was asking for trouble. The drives was, therefore, negligent in not taking adequate care which he was supposed to take. 6. The main contention of Mr. Kedarishwar, Learned Counsel for the Society, is that the accident was due to latent defect in the road which gave way without any fault of the driver. The latent defect is one which is so hidden that it cannot be found but with reasonable care and inspection. In the instant case there was no question of any latent defect being in the danga because, as already stated, the road was still under construction and had not been given the final shape. Moreover, the driver was not expected to take the vehicle on the danga itself. In these circumstances the plea of latent defect in the road has no force. It is true that this Court in Bhola Ram and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. 1982 A.C.J. 99 (H.P.) held that the sagging of the road on account of which the accident was caused was a latent defect. However, the facts show that the road was traffic-worthy and there was nothing to warn the driver about the defect in the road. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. 1982 A.C.J. 99 (H.P.) held that the sagging of the road on account of which the accident was caused was a latent defect. However, the facts show that the road was traffic-worthy and there was nothing to warn the driver about the defect in the road. As already stated, in the instant case the road was admittedly under construction, it was kacha and it was evident that danga had not been given the final shape. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. 7. Mr. Kedarishwar contends that the deceased was killed because of his own negligence in jumping out of the bus. The evidence on record shows that the deceased who was at one time sitting on a seat, surrendered his seat to a lady and was standing near a window. When the bus rolled down he was thrown out. There is nothing on record to show that it was the deceased who had in fact jumped out of the bus. The witnesses produced by the society have only surmised that the deceased must have jumped out of the bus since he was the only person who was found out of the bus and came under the bus. Assuming for the sake of argument that the deceased decided to jump out of the bus while it was rolling, he cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. He was in fact acting in a reasonable manner to save his life in the circumstances which had been created by the negligence of the driver of the bus. See Mis. Chaurasiva and Company and Anr. v. Smt. Pramila Rao and Ors. 1974 A.C.J. 481 (M.P.). 8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, I find that the Tribunal had calculated the income of the deceased including the pension which he was likely to get, at Rs. 300/- per month. It may now be noticed that the deceased was serving as Subedar in the Indian Army. It was on 26th January, 1971, that he was given Honorary rank of Lieutenant. He had already put in 28 years of service in the Army and was 45 years old when he met his death. 300/- per month. It may now be noticed that the deceased was serving as Subedar in the Indian Army. It was on 26th January, 1971, that he was given Honorary rank of Lieutenant. He had already put in 28 years of service in the Army and was 45 years old when he met his death. He had come to the village on 19th or 20th January, 1971, on 4 months leave preparatory to retirement. So he was to retire by the end of May, 1971, that is, after about 2 months of the accident. Thus it is not reasonable to take into consideration the income of the deceased at the time of his accident since his income was to last for about 2 months only. In these circumstances the Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the pension which the deceased was likely to get. I find that the Tribunal had also taken into consideration the fact that he could have earned at least Rs. 50/- per month more because he was in the process of opening a shop at Bhagwara. 9. It is contended by Mr. Kedarishwar that the widow of the deceased had been granted Rs. 85/- per month as family pension and therefore, this amount be deducted from the compensation to be awarded to the claimants. A Division Bench of this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Jai Ram 1980 A.C.J. 1 (H.P.), ruled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance or on account of pensionary benefits of gratuity. This decision was followed by a later Division Bench in State of Punjab v. H.L. Kochhar 1980 A.C.J. 437 (H.P.). Therefore, this contention of Mr. Kedarishwar cannot be accepted. 10. The aforementioned decisions have laid down that one of the ways to determine the compensation is by applying what is called the multiplier method. In this method each adult is given 2 units while the minors are given one unit each. The total number of units divide the annual income. By this method the amount spent on the surviving persons of the family is calculated and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- is added. The deceased has left behind his widow and four minor children. Total units will, therefore, come to 8. The amount spent on the six surviving units will be Rs. 2,700/- per annum. By this method the amount spent on the surviving persons of the family is calculated and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- is added. The deceased has left behind his widow and four minor children. Total units will, therefore, come to 8. The amount spent on the six surviving units will be Rs. 2,700/- per annum. Since the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 45 years, a multiplier of 10 can reasonably be used. This will put the compensation to Rs. 27,000/- . To this has to be added the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and the total compensation will come to Rs. 30,000/- . The claimants were, therefore, entitled to Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. 11. As regards the liability of the insurance company, I find that the insurer did not produce the policy of insurance. An adverse inference has to be drawn that this insurance policy did not fully cover the liability of the insured. 12. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Desraj and Ors. v. Ram Narain and Ors. 1980 A.C.J. 202 (All.), in somewhat similar circumstances observed: Where existence of an insurance policy covering the risk to a third party is admitted, the Tribunal, while determining the amount payable u/s 110-C can, in view of the provision contained in Section 95(2) of the Act, presume that the insurance company must have in any case covered the risk upto the statutory limit mentioned therein and in the absence of insurance policy it can safely direct payment of such an amount, by the insurance company. If, however, any person claims that under the contract of insurance, the insurance company had undertaken to indemnify the insured, for a larger sum, he has to get the policy made available for perusal of the Tribunal. In absence of insurance policy and without persuing the same the Tribunal could not fix any liability higher than that mentioned in Section 95 of the Act. As in this case the insurance company could not, u/s 110-C be saddled with a liability in excess at an amount higher than Rs. 2000/- . The result is that F.A.O. 24 of 1976 filed by Hamirpur Transport Society is dismissed while F.A-O. 28 of 1976 filed by the claimants, Kaushalya Devi and others, is allowed with costs. The compensation to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- . 2000/- . The result is that F.A.O. 24 of 1976 filed by Hamirpur Transport Society is dismissed while F.A-O. 28 of 1976 filed by the claimants, Kaushalya Devi and others, is allowed with costs. The compensation to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- . They will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till payment. The liability of the insurance company (The New India Assurance Company Ltd.) Respondent No. 7, will be of Rs. 5,000/- only since the accident occurred after the amendment of Section 95(2)(b) by Act No. 56 of 1969. The claimants will be entitled to the costs from the Hamirpur Transport Society as well as from Prem Chand (Respondent No. 6), driver of the bus.