JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV of 1939) (for short the Act') has been filed against the judgment and award dated May 8, 1975 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bhilwara (for sort "the Claims Tribunal"). An award for Rs. 26,000/- was passed in favour of the petitioners - appellants. They filed the claim for Rs. 78,500/-. In this appeal they have prayed that the award should have been made for the full amount as claimed by them with pendente lite and future interest. 2. Facts first Bus No. R.J.Z. 1282 belonged to respondents NoS. 1 to 3 (non petitioners Nos. I to 3). It was insured on the relevant date with the New Great Insurance Company of India Limited Bombay. Respondent No. 4 (non-petitioners No. 4) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, New Delhi is successor-in-interest of that company. The aforesaid bus was driven on March 10, 1972 at about 9 A. M. by Chandra Singh alias Ramesh Chandra, Rajput, resident of Shahpura Deceased Randhir Singh was coming on his motor cycle No. R. J. E. 1260 from Gangapur side to Bhilwara Gangapur road. When he was turning his motor cycle for going towards State Dak Bungalow and came on the main road, the bus which was being driven at a very fast speed struck the motor cycle and as a result of which Randhirsingh fell down along with the motor cycle. The bus ran over him. It stopped after covering a distance of 45-50 feet. It was stated by the petitioners that the place where the accident took place was not a wide road because Seth Murlidhar Mansingh had trespassed on its sufficient portion and raised construction. There is said to be an electric pole on the curve of the main road where the two roads, namely, main road and the road going from Gangapur meet. It was also stated that on the main road there is an electric pole and the curve where the two roads, the main road and the road coming from the side of Gangapur meet, is not round but they both cut at right angle. The driver failed to take precautions while he was crossing that section of road. On account of the accident Randhirsingh received six injuries on his body and succumbed to them after an hour or so. The driver failed to take precautions while he was crossing that section of road. On account of the accident Randhirsingh received six injuries on his body and succumbed to them after an hour or so. The motor cycle was also broken. At the time of the accident Randhirsingh was 391/2 years old. At that time he was employed as Education Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Banera. He was drawing Rs. 270/- per month beside D. A of Rs. 146/- per month ad hoc relief Rs. 32/- and an additional D A. Rs. 30/- P. M. The total emoluments at that time received by Randhirsingh were Rs. 478/- per month. He used to get about Rs. 50/- P M. from agriculture. His monthly income was approximately Rs. 500/- P. M. The petitioners have alleged that had the accident not taken place. Randhirsingh would have lived for 30 years more. The petitioners are his widow and four minor sons. The petitioners have claimed Rs. 72,000/- as general damages. Rs. 5,000/- for bodily and mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for the damage done to the motor cycle. Thus the total claim which they filed was for Rs. 78, 500/-. 3. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement. It was denied that the bus was driven rashly and negligently by the driver. It was averred that the deceased himself was coming very fast, that he turned his motor cycle without looking forward and so could not control it and fell down with it on the road. It was denied that bus stopped at a distance of 45 to 50 feet from the place of the accident. In the alternative it was submitted that the said accident took place because of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and that it was in the nature of an inevitable accident which could not be prevented despite exercise of reasonable care and caution on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The claim for compensation, on various other grounds was also denied. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues besides the relief. In this appeal I am only concerned with issues Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7 which are as under : (1) Whether the accident took place due to the carelessness and negligence and rash driving of bus driver Chandra Singh ? The Claims Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues besides the relief. In this appeal I am only concerned with issues Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7 which are as under : (1) Whether the accident took place due to the carelessness and negligence and rash driving of bus driver Chandra Singh ? (2) Whether the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 72,000/- due to death of Randhirsingh on account of accident ? (6) In case issue No. 1 is decided against the non-petitioners whether Randhirsingh was driving the motor cycle in excessive speed and he without looking in front of the road took a turn, which caused his fall front the motor cycle and thereby the accident took place due to his own contributory negligence ? (7) In case issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the non-petitioners, what would be the proportion of the contributory negligence of the deceased? The petitioner examined Dr. Amrit Lal (P. W. 1), Smt. Gumankanwar (P. W. 2), Dhanpal Singh (PW 3), Mohan lal (P. W. 4). Shambhu Singh (P. W. 5), Raghuvir Singh (P. W 6). Bahadursingh (P. W. 7). and Fayaz Mohammed (P. W 7). Documentary evidence was also produced. No evidence was led on behalf of the non-petitioners, though number of adjournments were taken for the purpose. The Claims Tribunal has recorded the following findings: (1) that both, the driver of the bus and the deceased Randhir Singh were rash and negligent in driving the vehicles which contributed to the accident in which Randhirsinhgh his lost life. Issues Nos. 1 and 6 were decided together. (2) that the total amount to be allowed as compensation to the petitioners should be Rs. 26,000/- which they are entitled to get. In view of the aforesaid findings the Claims Tribunal gave an award far Rs. 26,000/- in favour of the petitioner and against the non petitioners vide judgment dated May 8, 1975. 4. Non-petitioners have not filed any appeal or cross objection. The petitioners-appellants have filed this appeal for the enhancement of the Compensation. 5. I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia. learned counsel for the appellants (Petitioners) and Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No 4. No body has appeared on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 despite service. I have gone through the record also. 6. The petitioners-appellants have filed this appeal for the enhancement of the Compensation. 5. I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia. learned counsel for the appellants (Petitioners) and Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No 4. No body has appeared on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 despite service. I have gone through the record also. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions : (1) that the burden to prove the contributory negligence lay on the non-petitioners which they had faded to discharge. (2) that there is no evidence of the contributory negligence, and as such the finding of contributory negligence should be set aside. (3) that the amount of compensation should not have been reduced in the manner in which she Claims Tribunal has done. The petitioners are at least entitled to Rs. 60,000/- bring the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by the petitioners on account of the death of Randhirsingh. These contentions are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 4. 7. I have bestowed my most anxious and careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The first question that calls for determination is whether the Claim, Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and also that of the deceased. It may be stated that on behalf of the petitioners Mohan Lal (P.W. 4). Fayaz Mohammad (P.W.5), Bahadursingh (P.W. 7) and Netrapal Singh (P.W.3) were produced. The non-petitioners did not produce any evidence, even the Driver has not entered the witness-box. On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and that he did not slow down the bus knowing that the deceased was coming from Gangapur road and would take time to leave proper margin for the passing of the bus. The Claims Tribunal inspected the site. It has stated as under : "In order to appreciate evidence led by the petitioners, I inspected the site. The Claims Tribunal inspected the site. It has stated as under : "In order to appreciate evidence led by the petitioners, I inspected the site. In my humble opinion, to come to a right decision in what circumstances the incident took place, that is, whether the driver of the bus was rash and negligent, which resulted into the incident or both the driver and the deceased were responsible, the facts and circumstances observed by me play a very important role. Since I have inspected the site and found that a man coning from the side of Gangapur in order to go either towards Ajmer or towards bus stand, either on foot or on a motor cycle or on a bicycle, when reaches in line with the end of the wall which is situate on the left hand side of Gangapur road 5 ft. or 6 ft. away from the junction of the court yard wall of Mansingh building, Ajmer-Bhilwara road starts clearly visible to him on both sides, say upto a distance of more than a fur- long. Fortunately, when I inspected the site, one gentleman, who was going on a scooter was available. He was asked to come on his scooter with a moderate speed from the side of Gangapur road and to take a turn for going towards Ajmer side, in order to find out whether a man coming on a motor cycle from the side of Gangapur road in order to go towards Ajmer side shall have to go upto the middle of the road. In these circumstances, the evidence of Netrapal Singh and also of Bahadursingh cannot be believed. that the man coming from the side of Gangapur road can only see the road and the vehicle coming from Ajmer side when he actually comes to the point where the two roads meet." 9. It is thus clear that the Claims Tribunal has made the observations made by it on the site as the basis for holding that deceased Randhirsingh was also guilty of rash and negligent driving and for disbelieving positive evidence of Netrapal Singh (P.W. 4) and Bahadursingh (P W. 7) as unreliable. 10. This leads me to the consideration of the question whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in acting on the site inspection made by it and the circumstances observed by it in coming to the conclusion to which he did. 10. This leads me to the consideration of the question whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in acting on the site inspection made by it and the circumstances observed by it in coming to the conclusion to which he did. The site inspection note is on record. The question is whether this site inspection note and observations made by the Claims Tribunal could be used as evidence in this case. O. XVIII r. 18 C.P C. was considered in (1) Raghoba v. Anandbai (A I.R. 1930 Nag. 40). It was held therein that it is an incorrect procedure to base a finding mainly based on judge's own observations at the time of personal inspection as he cannot be cross-examined on the point. In (2) Guju v. Jogendra (A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 457, Wort J. opined that a judge should undertake local Inspection for the purpose of understanding the evidence in the case but not for substituting his own view of the matter for the evidence in the case. Before the same learned Judge (Wort. J.) the matter relating to local inspection come up for consideration in (3) Abdul Bagi v. Fakhrul Islam (A.I K. 1937 Pat. 333) The learned judge has observed as under : "Now the function of the learned judge in exercising his rights of local inspection granted by Statute, i.e., under the Civil Procedure Code is for the purpose of understanding the evidence and for no other purpose "By understanding the evidence" is not meant "contradicting a witness, a witness may make a statement which from the local inspection may appear to be untrue, but the learned Judge is not entitled to say that it is untrue from what he himself observes." In (4) Jamnadas v. Gulraj I.L. R (1951) 1 Rajasthan 448. Ranawat J (as he then was) held that spot inspection by Court can be used only to appreciate evidence of the parties that has come on the record, but it cannot itself be taken as part of the evidence and it is not proper to use the observations made by the Court by spot inspection in place of evidence itself. Ranawat J (as he then was) held that spot inspection by Court can be used only to appreciate evidence of the parties that has come on the record, but it cannot itself be taken as part of the evidence and it is not proper to use the observations made by the Court by spot inspection in place of evidence itself. Wanchoo C.J. (as he then was) has observed in (5) Chandra Ram v. Bhoma (AIR 1953 Rajasthan 167), while considering the provisions of O. XVIII r. 18 Civil Procedure Code that inspection under the aforesaid provision is for the purpose of understanding the evidence and cannot be a substitute for evidence of the parties. He further observed that in such cases an inspection note can also be a substitute for evidence of the parties and this is so where the parties ask the Court to go and inspect the subject matter and give a decision on the basis of the result of the inspection and further state that they would not lead any evidence on the point on which they desired inspection. After referring to the provisions of O. XVII I, r. 18 Civil Procedure Code it was observed by Mir Iqbal Hussain J. in (6) T. Krishna Swami v. Dhundappa (AIR 1962 Mys. 17 , that the observations of the Judge at the time of inspection could not be substituted as evidence in the case. After referring to (7) Kessowji Iswar v. G. I. P. Railway Company (I.L R. 31 Bom. 381), and (8) Raj Chandra v. Iswar Chandra (AIR 1925 Cal. 170, the learned Judge has expressed himself in the following words : "They (view of the judge on the inspection) can be used only for the purpose of better following and understanding the evidence adduced in the case or to test its accuracy. But it is not for the purpose of such inspection to be substituted as evidence in the case or to contradict it the evidence placed before it and make it the foundation of the judgment. (emphasis supplied). 11. But it is not for the purpose of such inspection to be substituted as evidence in the case or to contradict it the evidence placed before it and make it the foundation of the judgment. (emphasis supplied). 11. The reason given by the learned judge in this regard is that if this is not so, there is every possibility of personal inspection of the Court being substituted as evidence in the case to the detriment of the parties case and that they have no right to test the correctness of the learned Judge's observation at the time of the inspection by means of cross-examination. From the extracted portion of the judgment under appeal it is clear that the learned Member of the Tribunal was considerably influenced by his observation for disbelieving the statement of P.W. 3 Netrapal Singh and P. W. 7 Bahadur Singh. The observations made by him at the time of site inspection have been used for disbelieving the evidence of P W. 3 Netrapal Singh and P.W. 7 Bahadursingh. It has used the observation made by him at the site for holding that the deceased Raudhirsingh could very well see the vehicle and must have seen it if he was vigilant, when he was driving at a distance of 8 feet from the edge of Ajmer-Bhilwara road. As stated above, there is no evidence in rebuttal, but the Claims Tribunal had used the observations made by it at the site for holding that the deceased Randhirsingh was intentionally negligent that he did not slow down the speed of the motor cycle. I respectfully agree with the principles laid down in Abdul Bagi's case and T. Krishna Swami's case (6) and the observation made in the aforesaid authorities referred to above of the various High Courts I am of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal was not right in substituting the observations made by it at the site inspection as evidence in the case or for disbelieving the statements of P.W. 3 Netrapal Singh and P W. 7 Bahadur Singh. Even if the statements made by these witnesses appeared to it to be wrong from the site inspection, the Claims Tribunil could not disbelieve them and hold that they are untrue. Even if the statements made by these witnesses appeared to it to be wrong from the site inspection, the Claims Tribunil could not disbelieve them and hold that they are untrue. The site inspection note, as was done by the Claims Tribunal could not be made the basis for holding that the deceased Randhir Singh was guilty of contributory negligence. 12. It may be stated that the burden to prove contributory negligence is always on the defendants. Salmond in his Treatise on Law of Torts has stated while dealing with the contributory negligence that the burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the defendants and that it is not for the plaintiff to prove as part of his own case that he used due care but for the defendants to prove that the plaint If did not. Tate Privy Council in (9) Owners of S.S. Haranger v. Owaers of S.S. Diamond (1939 Appeal Cases 94) , has held that the party alleging negligence or contributory negligence must establish both by relevant evidence. No evidence was led by the respondents in this case about the contributory negligence. They failed to discharge the burden which lay on them. The Claims Tribunal has stated in the order that the bus driver must have known that there is inter section of the road anti that he must have seen the deceased when he came on the motor cycle up to the half of the road. But he did not slow down the speed of the bus. The Claims Tribunal has also stated that the bus driver might have thought that the deceased would have been able to swarve on the left side giving sufficient road to cross and that seems to he the reason that he did not slow down the speed of the bus. It is clear from the judgment of the Claims Tribunal that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road i.e., the motor cycle had come on the middle of the road. The bus was standing at a distance of 29 feet from the motor cycle, There was skidding marks of the tyre on the road. The skidding marks started where the motor cycle was crushed. The bus was standing at a distance of 29 feet from the motor cycle, There was skidding marks of the tyre on the road. The skidding marks started where the motor cycle was crushed. On the basis of these facts it was concluded by the Claims Tribunal that the driver of the bus was also rash and negligent and that he did not slow down the bus knowing that the deceased was coming from Gangapur Road and the deceased Randhirsingh would leave proper margin for the passing of the bus. In these circumstances whether at all any case of contributory negligence is made out. (10) Prov. Automobile C. v. Narayan Krishnarao (AIR. 1943 Nag 252) was a case with respect to the responsibility of motor driver vis-a-vis cyclist. Niyogi, J observed that as between the pedestrian or a cyclist and driver of a motor vehicle, there is greater responsibility of the latter to use care and diligence in as much as the duty to use care increases in proportion to the danger involved in dealing with the vehicle that a person brings for his own purpose in close proximity to others. He further held that if there is negligent on the part of the motor driver, the negligence of cyclist does not afford any defence to motor driver, for, the motor driver's negligent act or omission was proximate and efficient cause of the negligence which resulted in the injury to the cyclist. In (11) I.T. & G Ins. Co. v. M.G. Rao (196b ACJ 244) , the questions that the responsibility of the motor driver are greater than those of a cyclist and also relating to contributory negligence were examined by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whale following. Prov. Automobile Co.'s case (10), the learned judges have observed as under : "As between a cyclist and the driver of a motor vehicle, undoubtedly, the latter's responsibility to use care and diligence is greater. The duty to use care increases proportionately to the danger involved in dealing with a vehicle. Prov. Automobile Co.'s case (10), the learned judges have observed as under : "As between a cyclist and the driver of a motor vehicle, undoubtedly, the latter's responsibility to use care and diligence is greater. The duty to use care increases proportionately to the danger involved in dealing with a vehicle. In the case of an accident, when it is found that the negligent act or omission of the person causing it was proximate and efficient cause of the negligence, which resulted in the injury it is no defence that the person injured was also negligent, unless it is shown that the person injured had made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the person responsible for the accident to avoid it " 12. Nathalal Chhaganlal v. Kali Karsan Lavji 1979 ACJ 211, is nearer home. In that case the collision was between a truck and motor cycle at inter-section. The truck driver did not care for the motor cyclist who had already entered the inter-section. The truck dashed against the motor cycle causing injury to the motor cyclist. The question arose whether the motor cyclist was guilty of contributory negligence. The Division Bench in Nathalal's case (12) set aside the finding of the Claims Tribunal when it came to the conclusion hit the motor cycle's driver was guilty of contributory negligence and held that there is no material on record to warran, a conclusion that the driver of the motor cycle was guilty of the contributory negligence. The facts in (13) Nirmala Sharma v. Rajasthan Ram 1982 ACJ 143 (Del) were these : the deceased motor cyclist had covered a large part of the crossing when he was hit by a bus coming from his right side. The deceased and the motor cyclist were dragged to the considerable distance and the motor cycle was found lying at in front of the bus. I here were skid marks of the bus and the motor cycle and it has suffered various damages. The Tribunal found that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The deceased and the motor cyclist were dragged to the considerable distance and the motor cycle was found lying at in front of the bus. I here were skid marks of the bus and the motor cycle and it has suffered various damages. The Tribunal found that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The Delhi High Court set aside the finding and held that the bus driver was solely negligent in causing the accident because there was no evidence to suggest any negligent of the deceased and its driver drove the bus at excessive speed even while approaching the crossing and contravened driving Regulations 6 and 7 of sections 77 and 78 of the Act. The aforesaid decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts afford useful guidance in this case for examining the finding of the contributory negligence. The motor cycle had come on the middle of the road. The bus driver did not slow the speed of the bus knowing that the deceased was coming from Gangapur Road and would take some time to leave some proper margin for the passing of the bus. The responsibility of the bus driver was more than that of the motor cyclist. Even if there was negligence of the motor cyclist, in the facts and circumstances of this case it could not be a defence to the motor driver, for, the bus driver's negligence act or omission which was proximate and efficient of the negligence which resulted in accident causing death of the motor cyclist. The finding of the Claims Tribunal relating to the contributory negligence cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. 13. The net result of the discussion made here in above is that deceased Randhir Singh cannot be said to have contributed to the negligence. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was equally negligent when the accident had taken place. 14. Now coming to the question of the quantum, it may be stated that the Claims Tribunal while dealing with issues Nos. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was equally negligent when the accident had taken place. 14. Now coming to the question of the quantum, it may be stated that the Claims Tribunal while dealing with issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 came to the conclusion that if the deceased had not died in the accident, he would have continued in set vice upto 55 years of age, that is, he would have served for 15 years more as at the time of his death he was 391/2 years old and would have drawn salary in all to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has also stated that out of this sum, he would have utilised ⅓ for himself leaving ⅔ for the petitioners. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 500/- for physical and mental pain which the deceased suffered clue to the accident. No amount is payable on account of the physical and mental agony suffered by the deceased on account of the accident. Reference in this connection be made to (14) C.K.S. lyer v. T.K. Nair AIR 1976 SC 376 . The amount of Rs. 500/- on this account cannot be maintained. The Claims Tribunal has assessed Re. 60,000/- as pecuniary loss. The tribunal reduced from Rs. 30250/- amount of Rs. 4,250/- on account of the payment in lumpsum. It, therefore, allowed the compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 26,000/-. I have held that the finding of the contributory negligence is not sustainable and it has been set aside. The Claims Tribunal has found that the deceased must have contributed ⅔ of Rs. 90,000/- i.e., Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioners. The pecuniary loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the death of Randhirsingh is thus at Rs. 60000/-. The Tribunal has made a deduction of Rs. 4250/- for the payment of lump sum. This deduction on account of lumpsum was not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, having regard to the fact that money value is gradually depreciating and purchasing power of the rupee has diminished to a very great extent, no deduction need be made on account of the payment of the lump sum of the enhanced amount of Rs. 30,000/-. It may be stated that deduction on account of the payment in lump sum is not an invariable rule. 30,000/-. It may be stated that deduction on account of the payment in lump sum is not an invariable rule. Kemp and Kemp in their book on "The Quantum of Damages' Second Edn. Vol II at page 19 in this connection have been described the general principles as follows : "That the Court will also make some discount on the ground that the dependents get a lump sum down and will be able to enjoy the interest on it. But in this connection, it is submitted, that regard should be had to the general depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound sterling over the last fifty years and more, a trend which unfortunately shows no sign of altering." It was held (15) Rajinder Kaur v. Union of India 1975 ACJ 272 , that no doubt deduction is usually made on account of the lump sum, it is not an invariable rule. In (16) Premsingh & others v. Tika Ram & others 1967 ACJ 243 , it was laid down that no deduction should be made for the reason that the benefit was offset by the increase in prices and progressive decrease in the value of the rupee. 15. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in (17) National Ins Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Kunwar 1983 ACJ 629 held, that as further prospect of earning of the deceased has not been taken into account in determining dependency, no deduction should be made on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life In these circumstances ut of Rs. 60,000/-deduction for Rs. 4,250/- which was mad- by the Claims Tribunal will be however maintained but no amount will be deducted from the enhanced amount. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 29,750/-. 16. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed and the award dated May 8, 1975 of the Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara is modified against the respondents. Thus the award of the Claims Tribunal stands modified from Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 55,750/-. Thus, it is enhanced by Rs. 29,750/- The Claims Tribunal has while dealing with issue No. 9 has stated that an award for Rs. 26,000/- be issued in favaur of the petitioners- appellants and against the non-petitioners-respondents with proportionate costs It did not show any interest as it recorded a finding of contributory negligence of the deceased Randhirsingh. 55,750/-. Thus, it is enhanced by Rs. 29,750/- The Claims Tribunal has while dealing with issue No. 9 has stated that an award for Rs. 26,000/- be issued in favaur of the petitioners- appellants and against the non-petitioners-respondents with proportionate costs It did not show any interest as it recorded a finding of contributory negligence of the deceased Randhirsingh. The petitioners-appellants are entitled to interest under section 110 CCC of the Act as I have reversed the finding of the Claims Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence. As the amount has been enhanced by this Court, I consider it proper to allow interest on the enhanced amount of compensation namely Rs. 29,750/- at the rate of Rs. 6% per month (sic-annum) from today until realisation. The petitioners-appellants will thus be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 29,750/- at the rate of six per cent per annum from today until realisation. 17. The amount of compensation is now more than Rs. 50,000/-, respondent No. 4, will only be liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 'The liability of the Insurance Company is thus limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioners-appellants shall be entitled to the costs on the amount awarded from the respondents. The amount in excess of Rs. 50,000/- will be recoverable from respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The appellants will be entitled to costs according to their success in this appeal from the respondents. *******