JUDGMENT 1. - These two cross-appeals arise out of a common judgment cum award. These two cases were referred to a larger Bench, along with other appeals. The Full Bench has now sent it back with the following guide-lines in Santra Bai v. Prahlad, 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan) and other connected appeals vide judgment dated 17th April, 1985: (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 i n pu rsua nce of a 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 be liable to cover any contractual liability." 2. In the present case, Nanda died in an accident while he was fetching 29 sheep and goats in truck No. RSM 6919 owned by Kishanlal, the non-claimant No. 1 and driven by Ramdhan, driver the non-claimant No. 2, insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Delhi. Nanda was sitting on the tool box. 3. The claimants filed claim petition for Rs. 1,35,000/- but the Tribunal has allowed Rs. 21,600/- as compensation out of which Rs. 5,000/- are to he paid by the insurance company, the respondent in both the appeals. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is that the cattle carried in the truck were of Nanda and his father Shriram. There is a finding of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. The claimants have filed this appeal and so also the owner of the truck. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. 4. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is that the cattle carried in the truck were of Nanda and his father Shriram. There is a finding of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. The claimants have filed this appeal and so also the owner of the truck. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. 4. The owner-appellant has not challenged the finding regarding negligence and rashness but the main contention is that the insurance company should he made liable. The claimant's contention is that the insurance company should be made liable; and,that, the amount of award is inadequate and it must he increased. 5. The respondent-insurance company contended that Nanda cannot he compensated by the insurance company because he was not owner of the cattle taken in the truck It is significant to note that the insurance company has not filed an appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal that Nanda was the owner. 6. Even otherwise, the finding of the Tribunal is well sustained on record. It is true that there is some difference between the claim petition filed and the statement given by Shriram and the circumstances and the evidence which have been. ultimately believed by the Tribunal for holding that Nanda and Shriram were the owners. However, in claim cases of the accidents which took place by motor vehicle, such unimportant discrepancies are not of any serious consideration. It is well known that the accident claim cases are result of the social welfare legislation to provide social security to the citizens and particularly, to the unfortunate victims of the accidents, and in such cases, strict rules of pleadings are not applicable. In some of the States even the First Information Report lodged with the police is required to he sent to the Accidents Claims Tribunal, where the Tribunal is required to take suo moto notice and entertain claims. I am, therefore, not inclined to agree with the contention on this aspect of the case as pointed out by Mr. R.M. Lodha, more so because, the insurance company has not filed any appeal against the finding that Nanda was the owner, and the owner of the truck has not filed an appeal challenging that before this court. 7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. R.M. Lodha, more so because, the insurance company has not filed any appeal against the finding that Nanda was the owner, and the owner of the truck has not filed an appeal challenging that before this court. 7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has held that the amount of dependency of the claimants from the income of the deceased was Rs. 150/- p.m. Nanda at the time of the accident was 31 years of age and normally, the expectancy of life in this era is 70 years and, therefore, applying the multiple of 39 years, the amount would come to Rs. 70,200/ 8. Consequently, the claimants would he entitled to Rs. 70,200/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- would be paid by the insurance company. In case the above amount is not paid within a period of four months from today, the claimants would also get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till date of realisation. 9. The appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39/79) filed by Shriram and others, the claimants, is accepted as indicated above with costs. 10. The appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/79) filed by the vehicle owner - Kishanlal is partly allowed only to the extent that the liability of the insurance company would be upto Rs. 50,000/-. 11. The claimants, in both the appeals, would get costs. 12. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and in other respects it is upheld.Orders accordingly. *******