JUDGMENT 1. - Three Misc. Claim Petitions (Nos. 1, 6 and 7 of 1977) decided by one common judgment/award dated 16th July, 1981, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur are subject matter of the five appeals before this court. 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 129 of 1981 and 99 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Ramshree and others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128 of 1981 and 22 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Jasoda and others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 130 of 1981 relates to the claimants, Govind Saran and others, the owner of the motor cycle. 3. These five appeals were heard together. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982, Mr. Srivastava submitted that he would not like to press appeal against the driver-Mohansingh and therefore, it may be heard even though he has not been heard. 4. Now coming to the facts of the accident. It may be mentioned that on 15th December, 1976, Mahendra Singh, husband of Mrs. Ramshree and Purshottam Lal, the husband of Mrs. Jasoda, both, were coming on motor cycle No. RJD 7623 towards Paramdara village from Guhana village. When they turned towards Deeg, on the main Kama route, the truck USO 4427 fully loaded going towards Deeg, struck the motor cycle from behind. Purshottam Lal fell away with jump and the truck crushed Mahendra Singh and the motor cycle was dragged to 30 yards from the site of the accident. Mahendra Singh died on the spot and Purshottam breathed his last in the hospital soon thereafter at Deeg. The motor cycle relates to Hindustan Krishi Yantralaya, Deeg. The truck owner was Premchand and the driver Mohansingh. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Company. 5. The claim petitions were contested on various grounds but, ultimately, the award was given for Rs. 1,12,500/- in favour of Mrs. Ramshree, Ramvijaysingh, Raghvendrasingh, Devendrasingh and Mrs. Bhoodevi, mother of Mahendra Singh; Rs. 47,520/- in favour of Jasoda wd/o Purshottam Lal, Kumari Mamta, Om Prakash and Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Govind Saran the owner of the motor cycle for the damages caused to the motor cycle. 6. The Tribunal held that the total liability of the insurance company cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and apportioned the amount. 7. 47,520/- in favour of Jasoda wd/o Purshottam Lal, Kumari Mamta, Om Prakash and Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Govind Saran the owner of the motor cycle for the damages caused to the motor cycle. 6. The Tribunal held that the total liability of the insurance company cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and apportioned the amount. 7. Prem Chand, the owner of the truck USO 4427, has filed three separate appeals against the common award of the Tribunal, as mentioned above. The claimants have filed appeals only for increase of the amount in the two cases of death. 8. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the arguments in all the cases together. Even the appeal No. 22 of 1982 which was incomplete has been heard because the respondents are represented by Mr. G.C. Mathur and Mr. H.M. Bhargava and, they have no objection in getting a joint common decision in all these cases. 9. Mr. G.C. Mathur, the learned counsel, who has argued the case on behalf of the owner of the truck, has vehemently submitted that there was no negligence or rashness of the truck driver in the present case and, therefore, all the three awards should be set aside. Mr. Mathur, alternatively argued that there was contributory negligence of the motor cycle driver, also. 10. Mr. Mathur pointed out that, while the truck was going on the main road, the motor cycle came from the side of the road connecting the main road and, therefore, it was the duty of the motor cycle driver to slow down and allow truck to pass. According to Mr. Mathur, the motor cycle dashed and struck and, collided against the said truck after more than half portion of the said truck had already passed from the one side. 11. Mr. Mathur argued that the finding of the Tribunal that truck struck motor cycle from behind is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. 12. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been referred to by Mr. Mathur at great length and, he took great pains to elaborate his contentions. The claimants in all the cases are represented by Mr. S.C. Srivastava. According to him, the accident did not take place when the motor cycle entered the main road from the side road. Mr. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been referred to by Mr. Mathur at great length and, he took great pains to elaborate his contentions. The claimants in all the cases are represented by Mr. S.C. Srivastava. According to him, the accident did not take place when the motor cycle entered the main road from the side road. Mr. Srivastava pointed out that the motor cycle had already taken turn on the main road and after some time, the truck came from behind and struck the motor cycle. Mr. Srivastava also referred to oral and documentary evidence, in this respect. 13. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the controversy, I have devoted sufficient time to the appreciation of the oral evidence and, further in that light, examined the documentary evidence consisting of Exh. 18 which in my opinion, the damage caused to the truck in the shape of destruction of its radiator along with its tubes, bending of the bumper on the front side with a direction from front to rear and cuts on the tyre on the front wheel alongwith scratches at very places and further damage caused to diesel tank having direction from the front to rear side, unequivocally goes to show that the truck struck motor cycle from behind. It is significant that no damage has been caused on any side of the body of the truck and all the damages are on the front side where radiator, bumper and diesel tank etc., are fixed with the engine. The cuts and scratches on the front tyre of the truck further shows that the truck struck the motor cycle from behind. I have appreciated the oral evidence in the light of the document (Exh. 18) and the photos produced in the case. All the photos exhibited are of front side of the truck where the damage has been caused from backside of the motor cycle. In my opinion, this provides clinching evidence with the finding of the Tribunal that, the accident took place when the truck came from behind and struck the motor cycle, is just and proper and based on correct appreciation of evidence warranting no interference in appeal so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. 14. In my opinion, this provides clinching evidence with the finding of the Tribunal that, the accident took place when the truck came from behind and struck the motor cycle, is just and proper and based on correct appreciation of evidence warranting no interference in appeal so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. 14. In view of the above finding of the Tribunal in respect of the liability of the owner of the truck for the accident which happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, is confirmed. 15. The second and much more important point argued by Mr. Mathur relates to the liability of the insurance company. I would not enter into the detail discussion because in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Motor Owner's Ins. Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) , it is now authoritatively laid down that the liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents of this nature is not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole for all but, one accident' means accident to one. 16. It would, therefore, be necessary to increase the liability of the insurance company in all the three claim petitions, limiting it to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- depending upon the amount awarded in each case. 17. Now coming to the two appeals filed by the claimants of the two deceased. The sole submission of Mr. Srivastava is that the deduction made by the Tribunal to the extent of 25% from the total compensation calculated on the basis of the earlier decision wherein while awarding the lump sum amount, some deduction is usually made, on account of the interest which the claimants get and the benefit which they get in advance; has not been accepted by this Court and many other High Courts in the context of the changed social circumstances. Here again, after a detailed discussion, I have taken the view in Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Raj) , that the latest approach in this distinct field of social welfare legislation should be not to minimise the compensation by making deduction. Here again, after a detailed discussion, I have taken the view in Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Raj) , that the latest approach in this distinct field of social welfare legislation should be not to minimise the compensation by making deduction. I have noticed the following circumstances for taking this view: "Rise in prices and spiral on prices of all the commodities which is ever increasing in an unprecedented manner, the extra ordinary delay which takes place between the date of the accident and the realisation of the amount partially on account of the pendency of the cases in Tribunal and appeals before the High Court and partially on account of the execution of the decree." I have followed the view taken by Delhi High Court in Satya Wati Pathak v. Hari Ram, 1983 ACJ 424 (Delhi) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma, 1983 ACJ 580 (AP). 18. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the dynamic and pragmatic interpretation of this social welfare legislation which is a measure of social security for the dependency of the deceased or injured requires that traditional deduction based on the principles of British system should be treated as obsolete and outdated in the present times. Accordingly, I modify the impugned award and would allow the compensation calculated by the Tribunal without making any deduction which has been done by the Tribunal. 19. The result would be that in Claim Petition No. 1 of 1977 (Ramshree and others v. Prem Chand and others) the amount of damages and compensation would be Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,12,500/- allowed by the Tribunal. In another Claim Petition No. 7 of 1977 (Jasoda and others v. Prem Chand and others) the compensation awarded is increased from Rs. 47,250/- to Rs. 63,000/-. In both these cases, the liability of the insurance company would be to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in each case and not jointly for all cases. 20. In Claim Petition No. 6 of 1977 (Govind Saran v. Prem Chand and others) , the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- allowed for the damage caused to the motor cycle would be fully indemnified by the insurance company and not partially, as per the impugned award of the Tribunal. 21. With the above modifications in the impugned award, S.B. Civil Misc. In Claim Petition No. 6 of 1977 (Govind Saran v. Prem Chand and others) , the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- allowed for the damage caused to the motor cycle would be fully indemnified by the insurance company and not partially, as per the impugned award of the Tribunal. 21. With the above modifications in the impugned award, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982 (Jasoda and others v. Prem Chand and others) and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 1982 (Ramshree and others v. Prem Chand and others) are allowed, as indicated above, and, three appeals filed by the appellant Prem Chand are dismissed. It is further directed that the claimants should be entitled to get interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% p.a. if the said amount is not paid or has not been paid so far. This interest rate would be chargeable after two months from today till the date of realisation on the proportionate amount which would remain unpaid and proportionately to the extent of the liability, as indicated above from the respondent- non-claimants. 22. There would be no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******