GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.—These nine appeals No. 226 of 1984, 230 of 1984, 228 of 1984, 215 of 1984, 141 of 1985, 42 of 1985, 139 of 1985, 140 of 1985 and 138 of 1985, are all related to one accident in which a number of persons were injured and two including the driver cum owner was fatally injured. All the claimants have filed appeals for increase of the compensation awarded by the accident Claims Tribunal. The owner of the truck M/s. Oriental Road Lines and the claimants who are legal representatives of deceased driver cum owner of the car has also filed appeals. None of the insurance Companies have come in appeal. 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 28.1.1978 at about 5.30 A.M. when the car bearing registration No. RSG 214 collided with a trailer No. RSR 3125 in front of the residence of Collector on Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur. The result was death of the taxi driver and also the occupants of the taxi sustained grievous injuries and one Shrimati Shankari Devi died. 3. The first point which required consideration is as to who was responsible for the accident. The evidence recorded shows that PW-1 Nawal Kishore stated that the car No. RSG 214 was going when a truck came from front side. The car driver on noticing the truck from opposite side diverted the car on the left side. At that time a trailer came on the reverse direction and collided with the car. The trailer was not having the back light nor there was any person to give any signal or indication that the trailer is coming on the reverse direction. The reason of the accident was that the trailer came in the reverse side without any signal or light and the car had no wiper. Gopi Rams statement is also similar. According to him the trailer came in the reverse direction without a light or signal and that resulted in the accident with the car. He also mentioned that the car had no wiper and it was raining at that time. According to him the responsibility lies more on the driver of the trailer than that of the car. AW-4 Sulochana has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal AW. 7 has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal AW. He also mentioned that the car had no wiper and it was raining at that time. According to him the responsibility lies more on the driver of the trailer than that of the car. AW-4 Sulochana has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal AW. 7 has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal AW. 7 has also stated that the car had no wiper, and the driver drove the car inspite of the absence of wiper even when it was pointed out by the grand father. 4. The trailer had no horn, no light in the back and no indication that it is coming on the reverse side. According to this witness both are equally liable. 5. Bhagchand Khalasi of the trailer had tried to fix the responsibility on the car driver by saying that the car came rashly and negligently with fast speed. Wazid Ali had supported him. 6. Now after analysing the evidence it is obvious that accident happened primarily on account of the fact that the trailer came on the reverse side without a light and without there being any person giving signal nor any horn was given. It is significant that when a heavy vehicle like trailer decides to go on the reverse side and no signal is given, nor horn is given, no light in the shape of back light is there, then it is bound to create problem for the incoming vehicle who would notice it at such a time and occasion when the accident will become imminent and there will be no escape. The fact that the truck was coming on the front side and the car driver had no option but to divert the car on the left side would show that the car driver was not at all at fault. However, his fault was that he was driving the vehicle without a wiper. It has come in evidence that there were rains although it was not rainy season, because it was January. Even then not having wiper and that too by a taxi driver is certainly a negligence, though it may be of very minor significance. 7. The Tribunal has apportioned the negligence and rashness and responsibility of this accident equality i.e. 50:50. I am of the opinion that it is not correct. Even then not having wiper and that too by a taxi driver is certainly a negligence, though it may be of very minor significance. 7. The Tribunal has apportioned the negligence and rashness and responsibility of this accident equality i.e. 50:50. I am of the opinion that it is not correct. Primary responsibility and liability of this accident was of the driver of the trailer who took the trailer on the back side on the reverse direction without signal or the person to indicate it. It would put at 90% so far as the trailer driver is concerned. The taxi driver would be responsible and liable only for 10%. Thus the liability is apportioned as 90% of the trailer driver and 10 per cent of the car driver. 8. This would automatically result in apportionment of the claim amount for the two vehicles, when the claim amount is discussed and decided. 9. Now the question comes that whether the passangers, who were travelling in the car were also liable. Mr. Singh submitted that according to English Law the principle is that when the passanger sit in a car or vehicle which has got some defect and which is being driven negligently and it has come in their observation then are also responsible for contributing negligence. This principle is too difficult to be accepted in the Indian conditions. It is well known that the passengers have to travel in a very difficult condition. Mostly they have got no control over the taxi driver or bus driver or the train or the plane in which they travel. It would be too much to expect in Indian conditions that the passangers to travel in air bound plane or a seat of a bus of a railway would first inspect the vehicle and find out whether every thing is in order, then control or supervise or regulate the speed which is to be driven. 10. It is well known that mostly the passengers in Indian conditions are packed in these vehicles like chattals particular) in buses where they have got no option but to travel on account of exigencies, emergencies paucity of the transport, they have to accept whatever is provided. They are not even allowed to sit because the sitting space is too small and meant only for few passengers and most of the vehicles are over loaded. They are not even allowed to sit because the sitting space is too small and meant only for few passengers and most of the vehicles are over loaded. It is true that, that would not absolve them from the legal aspect. However, all laws, interpretation of which have been done in English Courts cannot be accepted in India. It is well known that the interpretation of law should also be done according to the conscience of Society the State the particular area and the manner in which the things are developing. The transport and conveyance in Indian condition particularly where the passengers cannot have any choice or option because these beings scaree and very rare, cannot be regulated by the passengers. I would have got no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the interpretation in the law of torts regarding negligence or rashness or contributory negligence or composite negligence in the matter of driving of the vehicles or upkeep of the vehicles or condition of the vehicles would be accepted in India. In my opinion we have to be alive to the felt necessity of time in the social condition and therefore, in Indian condition no passengers can be contributory liable or can be held contributory negligence or the omission or the commission of the car driver or of the truck driver or the bus driver the Indian Railway driver or Air Plane Pilot. 11. That being so we are not to consider whether the compensation allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference or must be increased suitably as claimed by Mr. Bhargva and Mr. Srivastava appearing for the various claimantes. 12. I would now take up the individual cases of the claimants. Gopi Ram was the occupant of the car, and was injured and he was 65 years of age at that time. He got a fracture in his fore arm his teeth were also shattered he was hospitalised for twenty days. His fore arm was operated. 13. The tribunal awarded Rs. 2000/- for the fracture three thousand for general pain and agony and one thousand for loss of happiness. Mr. Bhargava relied upon the judgement of 1986 ACJ 343 where award of 33320/- was given. He then referred 1986 ACJ 666 where award of Rs. 40,500/- was given. According to him the award should be of Rs. 40,544/. 14. 2000/- for the fracture three thousand for general pain and agony and one thousand for loss of happiness. Mr. Bhargava relied upon the judgement of 1986 ACJ 343 where award of 33320/- was given. He then referred 1986 ACJ 666 where award of Rs. 40,500/- was given. According to him the award should be of Rs. 40,544/. 14. I am unable to accept this contention because there has been no permanent disability. Of course the amount awarded is inadequate and should be enhanced reasonably. In my opinion as for about four or five months the injured Gopi Ram could not attend to his business and was also slightly impaired on account of appelate having been inserted in the operation in his hand. The Tribunal should have awarded five thousand for loss of business and for fracture looking to the permanent slight handicapped in strength of the hand and picking of things an amount of Rs. 5000/- should have been allowed in addition to the amount of Rs. 2000/- which have been allowed for fracture treatment. Similarly for the diet and medical treatment Rs 2000/- should have been allowed. Thus these amount should be added and they would come to Rs. 18,544/-. 15. In the case of Kumari Anjana award has been given of Rs. 30,331/-. She had fracture of both the legs. There has been disfiguration of face. 16. In my opinion as per the statement of Dr. Chandalia since inspite of plastic surgery even if it is attempted the disfiguration would only be reduced 50 per cent and there would be permanent disfiguration the girl should have been allowed Rs. 40.000/- for this serious handicapt in her life. Similarly for the amount allowed in the circumstances and the manner in which the injuries were caused the Tribunal should have allowed Rs. 5,GC0/- for medicines and diet. 17. Kumari Anjana on account of the disfiguration and on account of the injuries in the jaws and nose and on account of fractures both the legs suffered serious mental agony and pain and that too for considerable time. I, therefore, deem it proper looking to her age the nature of the injuries, the suffering which she had, that she must get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony pain and suffering on account of this accident. 18. In other respects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 19. I, therefore, deem it proper looking to her age the nature of the injuries, the suffering which she had, that she must get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony pain and suffering on account of this accident. 18. In other respects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 19. Nawal Kishore had bilateral fracture of hips and dislocation of both sides. He also had fracture of pelvic and jaws were broken near eye resulting in operation removal of teeth. His left hand was also fractured. 20. According to the medical evidence replacement of the dislocated hips may result in operation by expert which may be at the cost of Rs. 50 thousands. The dislocation of hips of the both side is a serious handicap for the injured. Nawal Kishore is only 36 years of age. He is son of Gopi Ram and doing business with him. The Family business baying income of about Rs. 1000/- per month but now with this handicap it will be difficult to him do the normal business. According to Dr. Kasliwal his impairment and disablement is 75%. Mr. Bhargava has placed reliance upon the decision in 1984 ACJ 560 in support of his contention that the compensation allowed is inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the present injured. I am inclined to accept that looking to the seriousness of the injuries and the fact that there would be disablement 75% permanently, the compensation allowed is inadequate. The Tribunal should have allowed compensation treating that the permanent impairment working capacity on account of 75% disablement and for that the estimates should have been made. As Nawal Kishore is only 36 years of age at this time, he has been permanently disabled and that also for a period of about 35 years. In my opinion the loss of future capacity to earn, should be calculated and then compensation should be allowed for that purpose. Even if it is assumed that the impairment would be of Rs.200/-per month then each year it would be 2,400/- and for 24 years it would be Rupees 57,600/-. Since 6,000/- has been allowed as loss of business I would allow 50,000/- as additional compensation. 21. Even if it is assumed that the impairment would be of Rs.200/-per month then each year it would be 2,400/- and for 24 years it would be Rupees 57,600/-. Since 6,000/- has been allowed as loss of business I would allow 50,000/- as additional compensation. 21. Regarding replacement by operation, it is difficult to make a forecast because no operations have taken place so far and what amount would be spent and whether at all Nawal Kishore going for operation is still a doubtful question The accident took place in 1979. I enquired from Mr. Bhargava whether Nawal Kishore has been sent for operation to Bombay or any other place or any operation has been done for dislocated ribs, so far. Mr. Bhargava submitted that so far it has not been done but in future according to the opinion and advice of Dr. Kasliwal it will have to be done. I am unable to allow any compensation since I am convinced that the person who for six long years have not undergone any operation inspite of dislocated ribs, it is highly doubtful whether at all he would like to undergo an operation for replacement now. 22. Consequently in the case of Nawal Kishore an amount of Rs. 50,000/-is increased and will be added in the compensation already allowed by the Tribunal to him Sulochna aged 35 years got a fracture in the right hand. An amount of only 1,000/- has been allowed for this injury in addition to Rs. 35/-of the medicine. There is no evidence that on account of this fracture there will be a permanent impairment. Even then I deem it proper that since she is a household lady and the right hand is the most important organ of the body of the functioning though it may not be substantial. Consequently the amount is increased to Rs. 5,035/-. 23. Mst. Shankari wife of Gopiram died in his accident. She was 63 years of age. Gopiram was 68 years. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2, 500/- only. In particular the amount for loss of love and affection on account of parting with life partner awarded is Rs. 2,000/-only. Similarly loss of consortium allowed is Rs. 500/-. In my opinion in spite of the fact that Gopiram is 68 years and Mst. Shankari was 63 years, the amount allowed on these two counts are inadequate. 2, 500/- only. In particular the amount for loss of love and affection on account of parting with life partner awarded is Rs. 2,000/-only. Similarly loss of consortium allowed is Rs. 500/-. In my opinion in spite of the fact that Gopiram is 68 years and Mst. Shankari was 63 years, the amount allowed on these two counts are inadequate. The basic fact is that in this age loss of life partner cannot be undermined as the requirement of life partner assumed much more important. Consequently I increase the amount of consortium as 5,000/-instead of:C0/-and the loss on account of mental pain and agony loss on account of love and affection and service rendered which should have been rendered by Mst. Shanti to Gopi Ram as 10,000/-. Thus 15,000/- would be increased in compensation to Gopi Ram for the death of Mst. Shanti Devi. 24. In the case of Darshani Devi and other claimants who have filed claim for the death of Munish Kumar driver cum owner of the car, Mr. Srivastava submission is that the multiplier applied should be of at least 35 years. Since he was only 30 years at the time of death. The Tribunal has applied different multiplier for the claimants. In my opinion the distribution of the compensation may depend upon the different claimants apportioned but a common multiplier should be applied so far as overall compensation is concerned. In view of this since he was driver of the vehicle and always he has to lead a hazardous life as such I adopt a multiplier of 30 years. The amount of compensation shall be as follows Rs. 650 x 12 x 30 = 2, 34, 000/-. Besides this, the claimants are entitled Rs. 1000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Thus the claimants shall get Rs. 2, 40, 001/-. As I have held that the deceased Munish Kumar was guilty of 10% rash and negligence, as such this amount is deducted to the extent of 10%. 25. The result is that the claimants shall get Rs. 2, 16, 000/- as compensation on accounts of the death of Munish Kumar. 26. The amount of the compensation may be paid to all the claimants in the proportion that the half of the amount shall be given to the wife and rest would be distributed equally amongst father and other claimants of the deceased. 27. 2, 16, 000/- as compensation on accounts of the death of Munish Kumar. 26. The amount of the compensation may be paid to all the claimants in the proportion that the half of the amount shall be given to the wife and rest would be distributed equally amongst father and other claimants of the deceased. 27. The amount would be paid and procedure for its realisation and deposit would be as adopted as laid down in Psta Devi Agarwals case RLR 1985, Page 134. 28. Having decided the main controversy about the quantum of compenstion in the individual cases, another important facet of these appeals is much more important for the claimants from the point of view of realisation of the compenstion which becomes real only when it is realised and remaint illusory, if it is awarded but cannot be realised, is the question of liability of the two insurance companies. 29. It has been mentioned about that the truck was primarily insured with M/s. National Insurance Company and the car was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Company. The liability of the National Insurance Company is alleged to be unlimited, by the claimants, The controversy is based on two grounds. One, that the insurance policy is comprehensive therefore liability is comprehensive and not limited to Rs. 50 thousands. The other ground is that according to the condition No. 13 and 16 the liability is unlimited because the column of the amount has been kept blank. So far as M/s. New India Assurance Company is concerned, I would deal with the question of M/s, New India Assurance Company little later. The National Insurance Company also under gone to mention at the top that the policy is comprehensive and have held in Smt. Chand Kanwar Vs. Mannaram (1) that the liability is comprehensive and the relevant discussion as contained in para 30 to 41. 30. Mr. Bhartiya learned counsel for the National Insurance Company submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Bal Swaroop Bal Bhatnagar and others decided on 25th July, 1986 held that interpretation of the comprehensive policy of the Single Bench in Chand Kanwar case is not correct. 31. Mr. Dalip Singh, Mr. G. C. Mathur as intervener and Mr. Bal Swaroop Bal Bhatnagar and others decided on 25th July, 1986 held that interpretation of the comprehensive policy of the Single Bench in Chand Kanwar case is not correct. 31. Mr. Dalip Singh, Mr. G. C. Mathur as intervener and Mr. Bhargava, appearing for the various claimants parties in the case has argued that the Division Bench has not overruled the judgment of Chand Kanwars case and the observations made in the Division Bench case are only obiter as the question never arose nor was argued pointedly nor adjudicated upon. It was pointed out that before the Division Bench the case in which the judgment was given, there was no question of interpretation that what is the meaning of comprehensive policy and that neither before the Tribunal nor before the single bench nor before the Division Bench this question was authoritatively considered and adjudicated, as it was never involved. In this connection reference was made to some of the paragraphs in the judgment wherein is the typed copy at page 15, that the question of limit upon the liability of the insurance company in respect of any one claim was considered with respect to the specific clause in the policy. The covenant in that case mentions specifically that the limit on the amount of liability in respect of any one claim or serious of claims arising out of the one event is Rs. 50, 000/-. 32. Mr. Singh pointed out that in the present case there is no such clause that the liability is limited to Rs. 50, 000/-and to this effect, a clause is added as per the Motor Vehicles Act. At page 20 of the judgment of the Division Bench the following observations are very pertinent: It may be mentioned here that this ground was not raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal or before the Single Judge and it is only because of the decision in Chand Kanwars case (supra) that this argument has been put forth before us for the first time by the earned counsel for the appellant. The learned Division Bench then observed that comprehensive cannot be taken to mean unlimited liability because it refers to different types of liability and not the extent of liability in financial terms, and then left the matter there. The learned Division Bench then observed that comprehensive cannot be taken to mean unlimited liability because it refers to different types of liability and not the extent of liability in financial terms, and then left the matter there. Without elaborating and deciding whether the decision given in Chand Kanwars case about the implication of the liability according to award or the liability according to the provision of the Act, only would hold good now or not. Mr. Singh then pointed out that the casual manner in which the argument was raised before the Division Bench resulted in the casual manner of making observations without adjudication about the correctness of the proposition laid down in Chand Kanwars case (supra). Mr. Singh submitted that the Division Bench has not overruled the decision of the Chandkanwars case (supra) in terms nor declared it as no longer good law. According to learned counsel the casual observations in respect of the nature of the liability and reference to Chandkanwars case (supra) mentioned there in would only mean that the Division Bench had its doubt about the correctness of the proposition laid down in the Chandkanwars case (supra). 33. In this connection following paragraphs which occurs at page 19 of the typed judgment; have referred; "This limit, when it fixes the liability for such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, means that the limit is the statutory limit prescribed by Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. Even if it can be said that it means the whole of the amount which is awarded to a claimant, then section 110 (b) of the Act Provides that the claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer." 34. I have given my anxious consideration to the above to the present controversy and 1 must mention that since it concerns the question whether Chandkanwars case has been overruled or not, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. There is no doubt that stray observations made in the Division Bench judgment certainly there is doubt about the correctness of the Chandkanwars case, in the judgment when it interpreters the comprehensive policy and the liability under it. There is no doubt that stray observations made in the Division Bench judgment certainly there is doubt about the correctness of the Chandkanwars case, in the judgment when it interpreters the comprehensive policy and the liability under it. However it is equally correct that except expressing some doubt and making some stray observations in the nature of obiter, the Division Bench, since it was not seized of the case did not prefer to over rule or reverse it. It would be seen from the decision of the Chandkanwars case (supra) that various facets have been considered to come to the conclusion that the comprehensive liability would mean liability as per the award, and not limited to statutory liability only. These all facets are supported by various decisions and various cannons of interpretation adopted in that judgment. The Division Bench was neither required 10 consider them thoroughly nor the learned counsel appearing before the Division Bench, persuaded the court to examine the Chandkanwars case to that extent for the purpose of overruling it or declaring it bad law, or no longer good law. 35. In such circumstances I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Singh Mr. Mathur and Mr. Bhargava the Chandkanwars case has not been over ruled nor it has been declared no longer as good law by the Division Bench and the observations made by the Division Bench are in the nature of obitor only. 36. It would be for the Division Bench or a larger Bench in a proper case to consider again whether the observations laid down in this respect, about Chandkanwars cases would be confirmed or overruled, so that the clouds which have gathered on the horizons are cleared in either case and no confusion is left and the law become certain specific and clear on this point. 37. Be that as it may, so far as that judgment has not been overruled, I would hold that he policy having comprehensive liability of the National Insurance Company and would be unlimited and would be as per the award given by the Tribunal, as modified by this court subject to other limitation and conditions mentioned above. 38. So far as New India Assurance Company, is concerned it is liable in the case of Darshani Devi and others who are claimants as driver and owner of the taxi is concerned. 38. So far as New India Assurance Company, is concerned it is liable in the case of Darshani Devi and others who are claimants as driver and owner of the taxi is concerned. I must mention that since Munish Kumar himself was the owner and the claimants step in his shoes, so far as his own widow and children are concerned and they cannot claim any amount from New India Assurance Company for the death of Munish Kumar, because it is only when Munish Kumar is required to pay compensation, the question of indemnifying by the Insurance Company can arise. 39. However, so far as other passengers are concencerned namely Smt. Sulochna; Kumari Anjaga, Nawal Kishore and Gopiram they would certainly be entitled to receive compensation form this company also. It may be clarified that though I have already held that the driver of the car was also responsible partially for the accident and it was a case of contributory negligence by him in the accident but for the passengers it would be a case of composite negligence. 40. I have held in Mohan Lals case that in case of composite negligence the party can realise the amount from the both owners of the vehicle. In that view of the matter the liability of New India Assurance Company in the case of passengers would not be limited. This being a case of composite negligence claimants would be entitled to realise whole amount from this company also. 41. In this respect Mr. Lodha who appeared on behalf of the New Assurance Company argued that the liability is limited to Rs. 10, 000/- per passengers as per the judgment of the Full Bench. However the claimants counsel pointed out that the present one is a case where an additional premium is given and policy of the New India Assurance Company limited upto dated 13th December, 1978 shows that the additional premium was given for four passengers in addition to the basis premium. I am also persuaded to consider the contention of Mr. Singh that in the policy it is meationed that endorsement No. 15 and 13 would apply and the policy is subject to this endorsement. I am also persuaded to consider the contention of Mr. Singh that in the policy it is meationed that endorsement No. 15 and 13 would apply and the policy is subject to this endorsement. It is significant that endorsement No. 13 with regard to passengers reads as under:- "In consideration of an additional premium of Rs.———and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in General Exception No. 4 but subject otherwise to the terms exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy the Company will indemnify the Insured against liability at law for Compensation (including law Costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under General Exception No. 3 being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle described in the Schedule hereto but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. ———in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs.——in respect of any number of claims in connection with any one such vehicle arising out of one cause. Provided always that in the event of an accident occurring whilst such Motor Vehicle carrying more than the number of persons mentioned in the Schedule hereto as being the licensed carrying capacity of that vehicle in addition to the conductor if any, then the Insured shall repay to the Company by reason of this endorsement if not more than the said number of persons were carried in the Motor Vehicle. Provided further that in computing the number of persons for the purpose of this endorsement any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any children in arms not exceeding 3 years of age will be disregarded. Provided further that in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the Insured, no refund of premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions conditions and limitations of the Policy." 42. Obviously these two clauses are blank and therefore the liability has been unlimited to any amount. Endorsement No. 13 forms part of the policy and since it has been mentioned that the limit to the sum in respect of any one person as a whole has been left blank. Obviously these two clauses are blank and therefore the liability has been unlimited to any amount. Endorsement No. 13 forms part of the policy and since it has been mentioned that the limit to the sum in respect of any one person as a whole has been left blank. It would mean that it is unlimited liability as held by Gujrat High Court in 1982 ACJ 380 Bomanji Rustomji Cinwala Vs. Ibrahim Vali Master and others, para 28 to 30 reads as under:- " Inview of the aforesaid legal position the terms of insurance policy will have to be scrutinised. At ex. 100 is found the insurance policy in question and Ex. 97 is a copy thereof. In the said policy, the limits of liability of the insurance company have been provided for Mr. Amin pointed out to me that in that column limits of the amount of insurance companys liability under section II (1) (i) is mentioned at Rs. 50, 000/- while limit of liability under section 11(f) (i) is found to have been kept bank. The insurance policy Ex. 100 has to be read subject to the attached clause C. V. Clausa C. V. forming part of the policy shows section II as bearing the heading Liability to Third parties section II (1) of clause C. V. so far as relevant for our purpose reads as under: (1) Subject to the limits of liability of the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of: (1) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and or unloading) of the vehicle. 29. The limit of liability as prescribed by the policy, Ex. 100 when read with the aforesaid clause II (1) (i) and (ii) of clause C. V. clearly shows that the companys liability for meeting the claim of third parties on account of death of or bodily injuries is limited to Rs. 50,000/- but so for as its liability to answer the claim of third parties for damage to property caused by the use of the motor vehicle is concerned, the column opposite to the said limit clause is kept blank. 30. Mr. 50,000/- but so for as its liability to answer the claim of third parties for damage to property caused by the use of the motor vehicle is concerned, the column opposite to the said limit clause is kept blank. 30. Mr. Amins contention was that a clear inference which arises therefrom is that the company wanted to limit its liability regarding the claims arising out of the damage to third partys property, to Act liability only. It is not possible to raise the said inference as Mr. Amin wanted me to do. The very fact that company has expressly limited its liability for meeting the claims of the third parties in case of personal injuries, to Rs. 50, 000/- and the further fact that it has not so restricted its liability so far as claims arising out of damages to property of third parties will clearly lead to the conclusion that so far as latter type of claims are concerned, the companys liability was intended to be kept unlimited. It is trite its liability in respect of claims arising out of the damage to property of third to Act liability in respect of claims arising out of the damage to property of third parties to Act liability only, the company would have expressly stated so in the blank column apposite printed particulars regarding the nature of damage to property as found in the policy, May be it was an error on the part of the insurance company or it may be that by some inadvertent mistake the concerned officers of the company while issuing the policy, forget to mention the limit on the companys liability regarding claims arising out of damage to property motor vehicle. But if there is any such error or omission, the benefit thereof could go the insured and the claimant rather than to the insurance company. It must thank itself for the negligence of its concerned clerks and or officers who issued the policy in question to the insured. However, it is impossible to presume from the blank column of companys liability that the company wanted to insert an endorsement restricting its liability to Act liability so far as its limit of liability under Section II (1) (i) was concerned. It would be a wild conjecture not based on any evidence. The company must thank itself for not being precise or accurate. It would be a wild conjecture not based on any evidence. The company must thank itself for not being precise or accurate. The fact remains that as the recitals in the policy stand there is an upper limit of Rs. 50,000/-so far as limit of companys liability under Section II (1) (ii) of clause C. V. are concerned meaning thereby on the term of the policy, the company has not chosen to restrict its liability to meet the claims of third parties regarding damage caused to their properties on account of the use of the insured motor vehicle. Mr. Amin submitted that in the column mentioning details of premium it is not shown that any additional premium was charged by the insurance company regarding any wider coverage which it wanted to provide for the insured vehicle against claims for damage arising out of accidental damage caused to properties of third parties by use of the insured vehicle. Its specific item was clearly mentioned in the premium column, it could have been easy to decipher as to what type of extra coverage was sought to be contemplated by the insurance company by charging additional premium. But merely because no such specification is mentioned in the premium column it cannot necessarily be presumed that the company did not want to cover any liability in addition to the Act liability so far as the claim falling under Section II (I) (i) of clause C. V. was concerned. The very fact that limit of companys liability pertaining to such a claim was expressly provided for in the terms of the policy itself leads to the necessary inference that the company did not want to restrict its liability for such a claim. In this view of the matter, the second contention of Mr. Amin has got to be repelled. It must be held that the company by an express term of the insurance policy, had effected a wider and unlimited coverage regarding claims of third parties pertaining to damage caused to their properties by use of the insured vehicle. It must, therefore, be held that the insurance company will remain fully liable to satisfy the entire claim of the claimant in the present case." 43. It must, therefore, be held that the insurance company will remain fully liable to satisfy the entire claim of the claimant in the present case." 43. In this view of the matter it is held that so far as New India Assurance Company is concerned, its liability would be unlimited for all passengers and there would not be any liability for this on account of death of Munish Kumar driver cum owner. The resultant position is that Darshani Devi and sons and daughters etc. would not be entitled to receive any amount from this company, on account of the fact that there is a composite negligence and whereas the policy of the National Insurance Company is comprehensive. The policy of New India Assurance Company is also comprehensive and unlimited liability in addition to being comprehensive. 44. The result of the above discussion is that these appeals are decided as indicated above. The claimants would get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till the date of realisation and from the date amount have been deposited by the Insurance Company or owners of the vehicles the interest would ceased to on that amount only. So far as this court is concerned the parties would bear their own costs.