S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN the winter night of 20th Feb. , 1979 at 10. 45 p. m. , a passenger bus bearing registration No. OSC 5964 was proceeding from Cuttack towards Paradeep. It dashed against a road side standing truck bearing registration No. ORU 1053 near Kandarpur petrol pump. The helper of the truck sustained fatal injuries to succumb at the spot. A passenger in the bus also sustained some injuries. The parents of the helper who are his legal representatives and the injured passenger filed two claim applications under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The passenger of the bus claimed Rs. 50,000/- and the legal representatives of the helper claimed Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation. The owner of the bus remained ex parte. The insurer of the bus contested the claims and so far as the passenger of the bus is concerned he claimed its liability if any to the extent of Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 2 ) TWO witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and some documents relating to the injuries were proved by the passenger of the bus. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials found that there was negligence in driving the bus. Considering the contribution of the deceased to be Rs. 2,400/- per year in respect of the deceased helper, it awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- by applying the multiple of ten years purchase. It determined the just compensation payable to the injured at Rs. 16,610/ -. Insurer has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 240 of 1982 against the award of Rs. 16,610/- and the legal representatives of the deceased helper have preferred Misc. Appeal No. 317 of 1982 claiming higher compensation. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the bus dashed against the road side standing trick at night. The driver of the bus has not been examined in this case to prove the circumstances under which the accident occurred. Neither the owner nor the driver of the truck has been examined in what circumstances, the truck was parked at that place in the night. Excepting the injured, there is no other eye witness to prove the nature of the accident. From the nature of the accident it can safely be concluded that there was negligence in driving the vehicle. Neither the owner nor the driver of the truck has been examined in what circumstances, the truck was parked at that place in the night. Excepting the injured, there is no other eye witness to prove the nature of the accident. From the nature of the accident it can safely be concluded that there was negligence in driving the vehicle. When the owner was not contesting it was the duty of the insurer to get the driver of the bus examined by getting the name of the owner. However, the facts are tell tale in this case. It is a common knowledge that Cuttack-Paradeep road is a busy road. Road-side is not a parking station for the motor vehicles and that the heavy vehicles like trucks. In the circumstances, I am of the view that parking of the truck on the roadside at night is a negligent act contributing to the accident. However, the owner of the truck and the insurer thereof not being parties to this claim, I need not delve into the matter leaving the question open to be agitated between the insurer of the bus and the owner and insurer of the truck to settle their liabilities among them mutually or through Court in accordance with law. ( 4 ) MR. P. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant in M. A. No. 240 of 1982, submitted that the statutory liability of an insurer of a passenger bus is Rs. 5,000/- in respect of each individual passenger with a higher limit for the liability. The limit of liability varies in respect of the sitting capacity of the bus. However, in the present case there being only single passenger insurer's maximum liability would be of Rs. 5,000/ -. Reading S. 95 (2) of the Act it is clear that there is no bar against the insurer to indemnify the higher liability of the owner in case there is a term to that effect in the policy. However, in the absence of the insurance policy being brought to record in this case which could have been brought by the insurer the liability ought not to be limited to Rs. 5,000/- only. However, in the absence of the insurance policy being brought to record in this case which could have been brought by the insurer the liability ought not to be limited to Rs. 5,000/- only. In such circumstances, when I have come to the conclusion that the truck had also contribution for the accident, interest of justice would be best served in case I direct the appellant-insurer to bear the entire liability as awarded by the Tribunal to settle up the liability with the owner and the insurer of the truck. In view of this conclusion, M. A. No. 240 of 1982 filed by the insurer has no merit. ( 5 ) COMING to the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased who was helper of the truck, I find that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation taking into consideration the chance of marriage of the deceased in future to reduce the dependency of the parents. In case the deceased would have married the widow would have also claimed compensation in the matter. That would be no consideration for reducing the dependency. The loss sustained by the legal representatives on the death of the deceased on the date of accident or death should be the basis. ( 6 ) SECTION 110-B of the Act provides for determination of just compensation. Courts generally adopt three modes for determining the just compensation. One method is to determine the actual loss, the second method is the annual loss multiplied by average years of such loss and the third method which is an offshoot of the multiple of years purchase is the amount which would bear the annual interest sufficient to earn the annual loss. Secured investment in a bank is the basis. Courts apply one of the above methods for determining the just compensation depending upon the circumstances of each case. ( 7 ) MR. Dhal, the learned counsel for the appellants in M. A. No. 317 of 1982, submitted that the multiple applied here being unreasonable and irrational and there being evidence of actual annual loss to the parents the compensation should have been determined by taking into consideration their average life span. Mr. Dhal would have been justified in his submission, but for the fact that the deceased was the helper of the truck and was a workman. Truck is not the place of his residence. Mr. Dhal would have been justified in his submission, but for the fact that the deceased was the helper of the truck and was a workman. Truck is not the place of his residence. When he faced the accident while being in the truck, it can safely be concluded that the accident occurred in course of employment. In case the parents would have claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, they might have been paid the compensation as per the schedule thereof. Negligence is not a consideration in that Act. Thus, the just compensation to the dependents of a deceased workman has been legislated. Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act should take note of such rate to compensate the loss. Provision in the Act is not for earning profit. When Parliament had legislated the rate of just compensation, the same is to be the standard. Merely because the person is not the owner, the liability ought not to be enhanced. ( 8 ) WHEN claim is made under the Motor Vehicles Act due attention has not been given in bringing the actual wages of the deceased helper. For this purpose alone, to remit the matter back would be harassing to the legal representatives, of the deceased. It is a known fact that the helpers of the trucks are given some regular benefits other than the wages, which come within the definition of wages. In the absence of any clear material on the point, it would be reasonable to have a guess work that the wages of the deceased was between Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- monthly. Accordingly, dependents of the deceased would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 21,000/ -. The same should be the just compensation in this case. The appeal succeeds to the extent of Rs. 1,000/ -. claimants would be entitled to the interest from the date of application till realisation within two months from today at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. In case the amount is not paid within two months, the amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12 1/2% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation, adjusting the amount already paid. ( 9 ) IN the result, Misc. Appeal No. 240 of 1982 is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 317 of 1982 is allowed in part. ( 9 ) IN the result, Misc. Appeal No. 240 of 1982 is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 317 of 1982 is allowed in part. Parties shall bear their own costs in both the appeals. Order accordingly.