Judgment Guman Mal Lodha, J.-These four appeals are by the claimants in a motor vehicle accident, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rejecting their claim by judgment dated January 15, 1985. Since all the four cases are concerned with one accident, I have accepted the prayer of learned Counsel for the parties to decide them by one common judgment. 2. On June 5, 1980, the deceased, Madan Singh, and others were travelling in truck No. RSB 4919 from Datli to Dadu and on the way, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the truck could not be controlled and suddenly it turned down due to which Madan Singh died along with others. In all, four persons died, and their relatives have filed these claim petitions. The persons who died are Babu Khan, Mangla, Madan Singh and Phool Chand. The driver is Ramesh Chand. The truck No. is RSB 4919. The name of the owner of the truck is “Bahari Goods Carrier. 3. The first and the foremost point is whether there can be any liability for these passengers who were travelling in the truck. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were travelling after payment of Rs. 10 each and therefore the travelling of these passengers in the goods truck was for hire and reward and it was not a joy ride. In view of this finding, the judgment of the Full Bench in Santra Bai vs. Kailash [1985] RLR 635; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 714 (Raj) applies. According to the Ful1 Bench decision and the principles which have been deduced, it has been held that in cases of goods vehicles, the insurance company would not be liable in cases of gratuitous passengers a joy ride on their own responsibility, but would be liable in cases of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in the vehicle. Obviously, since these four passengers were being carried for hire or reward, as found by the Tribunal, the principles of the Full Bench judgment would make the insurance company liable. The next question is two-fold. (1) What is the liability of the insurance company, and (2) as to what and to how much extent the claim should be allowed. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, Mr. The next question is two-fold. (1) What is the liability of the insurance company, and (2) as to what and to how much extent the claim should be allowed. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, Mr. Srivastava’s contention is that it is limited to Rs. 15,000 for each of the passengers. Mr. Bhartia, Counsel for the claimants, and Mr. Singhvi, Counsel for the owner of the truck on the contrary, contends that the insurance policy contains a clause of unlimited liability and, therefore, in the present case, the liability would be unlimited. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the original insurance policy which was shown to me during the arguments by Mr. Srivastava. Undoubtedly, the insurance policy at the bottom of the page has got a clause “unlimited liability w.e.f from 26-8-80 5. However, I have yet to examine the contention of Mr. Srivastava because, according to him, Section 95 would apply and once it applies the liability would be governed by it. 6. I find that Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the minimum liability for which an insurance should be taken. Section 95 would not govern the relationship between the insurer and insured or the third party as such, but it says that in order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be there. I find that Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the minimum liability for which an insurance should be taken. Section 95 would not govern the relationship between the insurer and insured or the third party as such, but it says that in order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be there. Sub-clause (2) of Section 95 further provides that a policy of insurance should cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely: “(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of (fifty) thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of , or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle, .(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, .(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all .(ii) in respect of passengers :-- .(1) a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers: .(2) a limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry mere than thirty but not more than sixty passengers; .(3) a limit of one lakh rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than sixty passengers ; and .(4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case .(c) save as provided in clause (d) where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred; .(d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit of rupees two thousand in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party.” 7. Naturally, it means that the minimum liability which the insurance policy should cover under the Motor Vehicles Act in order to fulfil the requirements of compulsory insurance, so that the certificate of registration can be given or certificate of fitness can be given, for the purposes of the insurance policy, is one which fulfils at least the requirements of Section 95. Thus, Section 95 prescribes the minimum and is not the maximum nor a rider or ceiling limit for the insurance liability, ft is always open to the insurer or insured to have more liability than what is contemplated in Section 95. 8. When the clause mentioned in the insurance policy is of unlimited liability, apart from the fact that the policy is a comprehensive one, the liability of the insurance company is co-extensive with that of the liability of the owner. The insurance company, after charging the premium for unlimited liability, cannot take shelter under Section 95 for circumventing or by back door avoiding the liability which it has incurred under the policy. The insurance company is to be governed by the terms of the contract contained in the insurance policy, and Section 95 only mentions the minimum requirement that must be there in that policy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the liability of the insurance company in this particular case is unlimited for the death of these four passengers also. 9. Thenext question which is required to be considered is : what is the amount which should be allowed in each case? 10. Now, coming to the question of compensation, I would take up each case separately. In Babu Khan’s case, Babu Khan was 35 years of age. According to the Tribunars finding, the benefits his family would have obtained from his income after deducting the expenses which he would have incurred on himself were worth Rs. 350 per month. In my opinion, the multiplier of 20 would apply because the nature of the work was such that the same income would not be possible in old age. Considering that, the compensation would be Rs. 84,000. In addition to this, Rs. 10,000 for the loss of love and affection to all the family members. Thus, the compensation would be Rs. 94,000. Considering that, the compensation would be Rs. 84,000. In addition to this, Rs. 10,000 for the loss of love and affection to all the family members. Thus, the compensation would be Rs. 94,000. This would be divided between the dependants in such a manner that half of the amount would go to the wife and in the remaining half all other children would share equally. 11. In the case of Madan Singh and in the case of Phool Chand, the same principle would apply. In these cases they expected to give a benefit of Rs. 350. The same principle would apply. Both Madan Singh and Phool Chand were 45 years of age at the time of death, and their income was such that the dependants would have got Rs. 350 p. m. Applying the multiplier of 15 years, the amount of compensation would be Rs. 63,000. For loss of love and affection in each case, there would be an amount of Rs. 10,000 additional for that purpose. Both claimants of Madan Singh and Phool Chand would each get Rs. 73,000 in the proportion that the wife would get fifty per cent. and the rest would be divided in equal proportions among all the other claimants. 12. So far as Mangla is concerned, he was of 45 years. The expectancy of benefit to the family members from him was also Rs. 350 per month. His multiplier would be 15 years. Mangla was also of 45 years and the expectancy of income to his family, after deducting the amount of himself , was Rs. 350. Thus, if the same multiplier should be applied of 15 years, the resultant compensation would be Rs. 63,000. The amount of loss for love and affection would be Rs. 10,000. In all, the amount would be Rs. 73,000. 13. Toconclude, in the case of Mangla, Madan Singh and Phool Chand who were all 45 years of age at the time of death by accident, the amount of compensation in all would be Rs. 73,000 in each case. So far as Babu Khan is concerned, he was 35 years old and the amount of compensation in his case would be Rs. 94,000. 14. For the above amount of compensation, all the respondents-non-petitioners would be liable jointly and severally. All the four appeals are accepted and the compensation is allowed as mentioned above. 73,000 in each case. So far as Babu Khan is concerned, he was 35 years old and the amount of compensation in his case would be Rs. 94,000. 14. For the above amount of compensation, all the respondents-non-petitioners would be liable jointly and severally. All the four appeals are accepted and the compensation is allowed as mentioned above. The appellants would also get interest at the rate of 12 per cent. from the date of application till the date of realisation. Any amount paid already would be adjusted. The parties would bear their own costs in these appeals in this Court. All the four appeals are accepted as indicated above.