JUDGMENT 1. - This case has come up for consideration after the decision of the Full Bench in Santra Bai v. Prahlad. 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan) . In pursuance of that decision, the following four categories have been evolved and the principles laid down: "(i) in case of a gratuitous passenger going on joy-ride or on his own responsibility. insurance company is not liable; (ii) in case of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance ofa contract of employment in any vehicle, the insurance company is liable. This would include owner of the goods as well as his employees; (iii) the insurer shall not be liable to cover liability in respect of employee of the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to. any such employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, if such employee is (a) engaged in driving such vehicle, or(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods vehicle being carried in the vehicle; (iv) the insurer shall not he liable to cover any contractual liability." 2. In the present case, the deceased was the owner of the goods and he comes in the category No. (ii) according to the principles laid down by the Full Bench. 3. It is common ground between the parties that since the deceased comes in the category No. (ii), he would be entitled to compensation from the owner of the vehicle. It is also common ground that the liability of the insurance company would be only upto Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it would he Rs. 60,000/- because the deceased was of 25 years of age and the expected income to the dependant was Rs. 200/- p.m. from the deceased, and the expectancy of life was treated as 60 years. 5. Mr. Joshi's contention is that this court has repeatedly held that the expectancy of life in this era would be 70 years. Applying this principle, the increased amount would be Rs. 84,000/-. The liability of the insurance company would be limited only upto Rs. 50,000/ 6. 5. Mr. Joshi's contention is that this court has repeatedly held that the expectancy of life in this era would be 70 years. Applying this principle, the increased amount would be Rs. 84,000/-. The liability of the insurance company would be limited only upto Rs. 50,000/ 6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above, with the modification that the award for compensation would be for Rs. 84.000/ - the claimants would get interest at the rate of9 percent per annum on the above amount of award from the date of application till the date of realisation. In all other respects, the impugned award is upheld. The amount not paid so far should he paid within a period of six months from today, failing which the interest would be at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 9 per cent per annum. 7. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above with costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******