JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was referred to the larger Bench and now according to the judgment delivered by the Full Bench in Santra Bai v. Prahlad. 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan) , the following principles are well settled: "(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 pursuance 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 he 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 appeal in hand, the deceased was the owner of the goods which were being carried in the goods vehicle. It is common ground that the principle No. (ii) would apply to the present case because the deceased was the owner of the goods and it has been included in category No. (ii) of the Full Bench deductions. Consequently, the insurance company in the present case would also be liable to make the payment to the extent of the liability. It is common ground that the liability of the insurance company can he upto Rs. 50,000/- as per the policy. 3. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has allowed Rs. 30,000/- after computing the compensation as Rs. 451100/- and making deduction of Rs. 15,0(X)/'- from Rs. 45,000/-. 4. I have held in a series of cases that. no deduction can he made for lump sum. Consequently. the amount of compensation computed by the Tribunal as Rs. 45,000/- cannot he reduced. 5. Mr. 30,000/- after computing the compensation as Rs. 451100/- and making deduction of Rs. 15,0(X)/'- from Rs. 45,000/-. 4. I have held in a series of cases that. no deduction can he made for lump sum. Consequently. the amount of compensation computed by the Tribunal as Rs. 45,000/- cannot he reduced. 5. Mr. N.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, further submitted that the expectancy of the life has been calculated as 60 years against the recent trend of 70 years. On this aspect of the case. I have held in it series of cases that the expectancy of the life in the present age is 70 years and it should he calculated as such. Since the Tribunal has computed the compensation on the basis of expectancy of life as 60 years. it would he increased by 50% for additional 10 years and that would come to Rs. 67,500/-. 6. Even though the award for compensation is of Rs. 67,500/-, but the insurance company in the present case would he liable only to the extent of Rs. 50.000/-. The claimants would get interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. In case the amount is not paid within three months from today. the claimants would also get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application for compensation till the date of realisation. While calculating the interest the portion of the amount paid or deposited would he adjusted. 7. The result is that this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above with costs, and the impugned award is modified to the above extent.Appeal partly allowed. *******