JUDGMENT 1. - All these three appeals arise out of the common award dated 29.7.1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in the two claim petitions filed one by Meera Devi along with other heirs of deceased Purushottam and another by Gopal Dass, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment along with cross-objections filed by Nemi Chand in Appeal No. 176 of 1983 and by Gopal Dass in Appeal No. 191 of 1983. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to these appeals, are that on 25.10.1979 the bus bearing No. URB 1575 belonging to the U.P. Roadways was coming from Brindavan to Udaipur. At about 8.30 in the evening when this bus was negotiating town near Bhagwan Da Gram a truck bearing No. RSY 4036 came from opposite direction and struck against the bus as a result of which, passengers Purushottam and Gopal Dass received serious injuries. Both were immediately taken by another bus of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which came there to the hospital. But Purushottam died and Gopal Dass could survive on account of proper medical treatment. The heirs of deceased Purushottam filed a claim petition on account of the death of Purushottam and Gopal Dass filed a claim petition for compensation for injuries received by him in this very accident. The claim petitions were filed against the driver and owner of the bus as well as of the truck and the insurance company which insured the truck. The claimants examined a number of witnesses. Likewise the non-claimants also examined a number of witnesses. The relevant witnesses will be referred while discussing the arguments. After considering over the matter the Tribunal decreed the claim of the wife and others of deceased Purushottam, i.e., Meera Devi and others to the extent of Rs. 72,000/- and in case of Gopal Dass the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him. Aggrieved against this award, the claimants Meera Devi and others have filed the present Appeal No. 176 of 1983 on the ground that the U.P. Roadways Corporation should also be held liable as the driver of the bus of the U.P. Roadways was also equally negligent. A cross-objection has also been filed in this appeal by Nemi Chand, the owner of the truck on the ground that in fact the driver of the U.P. Roadways was negligent. A cross-objection has also been filed in this appeal by Nemi Chand, the owner of the truck on the ground that in fact the driver of the U.P. Roadways was negligent. As such the U.P. Roadways shall also be saddled with the liability of paying the compensation. The insurance company has filed the appeals bearing Nos. 190 and 191 of 1983 on the ground that their liability is only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Gopal Dass has also filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by the insurance company for enhancement of the compensation. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as the Respondents. First taking the appeal of Meera Devi. In this case, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellants Meera Devi and others, has taken me through the statements of AW 5 Gopal Dass who was injured and NAW 4 Ram Bharoselal, driver of the bus. Learned Counsel has submitted that as per the statement of Gopal Dass the bus driver of the U.P. Roadways was also driving the vehicle at a fairly high speed. According to the statement of NAW 4 Ram Bharoselal, driver of the bus the distance between Brindavan and Udaipur is 1350 km. (Sic.) and he has to cover the distance in 16 hours. Learned Counsel thus submitted that from these facts it is apparent that the driver of the bus has to cover the distance of 1350 km. (Sic.) in 16 hours as such the driver has to drive the bus with an excessive speed so as to negotiate this distance in 16 hours. Thus, from the statements of these two witnesses learned Counsel submitted that rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver of the U.P. Roadways is apparent. Therefore, he should also be held liable for the accident. As against this Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the U.P. Roadways and the driver has invited my attention to the statements of NAW 1 Nathisingh, NAW 3 Bhagwandass and NAW 5 Baldeo Prasad passengers. These witnesses have deposed that the bus in which they were travelling was not driven at excessive speed. As against this Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the U.P. Roadways and the driver has invited my attention to the statements of NAW 1 Nathisingh, NAW 3 Bhagwandass and NAW 5 Baldeo Prasad passengers. These witnesses have deposed that the bus in which they were travelling was not driven at excessive speed. The cumulative effect of these two different versions is that according to the statement of Gopal Dass the bus was driven at an excessive speed and according to these three passengers the bus was not driven at an excessive speed, the learned Tribunal after reviewing all this evidence has recorded the finding that the bus of the U.P. Roadways was not being driven at an excessive speed. Having considered the arguments of Mr. Calla and Mr. Gupta and perusing the statements of these witnesses I am inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the U.P. Roadways bus was not being driven at an excessive speed. In this connection, the statement of NAW 4 Ram Bharoselal would show that when he saw the truck was coming with an excessive speed he took away his bus from the road to kacha and to the same effect are the statements of NAW 1 Nathisingh, Bhagwandass NAW 3 and Baldeo Prasad NAW 5. Simply that in the cross-examination he has deposed that distance from Brindavan to Udaipur is 1350 km. (Sic.) and he has to negotiate that in 16 hours, it cannot be inferred that he was driving the vehicle at an excessive speed. As against this there is testimony of three passengers of the same bus. Thus, I hold that the bus of the U.P. Roadways was not being driven either rashly and negligently or at an excessive speed. This also disposes of the cross-objections filed by Nemi Chand, owner of the truck. 4. Next, learned Counsel submitted that the deceased Purushottam was a teacher and he was aged 37 years. According to the Tribunal the dependency, of the claimants was treated to be Rs. 500/- per month and it has employed the multiplier of 12 years. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel, submitted that even accepting the finding of the Tribunal that dependency was Rs. 500/- per month still the multiplier of 12 years for a person aged 37 years is too low in the present state of affairs where the life expectancy has gone to 65-70 years. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel, submitted that even accepting the finding of the Tribunal that dependency was Rs. 500/- per month still the multiplier of 12 years for a person aged 37 years is too low in the present state of affairs where the life expectancy has gone to 65-70 years. Thus, learned Counsel submitted that atleast the multiplier of 20 years should have been employed in the present case. I think the submission of Mr. Gupta deserves to be accepted. It has been accepted by the apex court of the country that life expectancy in the country has risen. Therefore, the multiplier of 12 years applied in the present case appears to be too low. As such the multiplier in the present case deserves to be enhanced to 20 years. Thus by employing the multiplier of 20 years the amount comes to 500 W 12 W 20= 1,20,000/-. Therefore, the compensation for death of deceased Purushottam is increased to Rs. 1,20,000/- with 9 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Now, coming to the two appeals filed by the insurance company. The plea of the insurance company was that according to their policy read with Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act their maximum liability is to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. Learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal while discussing this aspect of the matter has recorded that the insurance company has not led any evidence nor has produced a copy of the policy showing their liability in terms of the policy to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plea of the insurance company was overruled by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Bohra, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, has specifically invited my attention to the provisions of Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 95 of the Act and submitted that the outer limit in the present case was Rs. 50,000/- at the relevant time and the insurance company cannot be asked to indemnify the insured beyond the outer limit of Rs. 50,000/-. Bohra, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, has specifically invited my attention to the provisions of Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 95 of the Act and submitted that the outer limit in the present case was Rs. 50,000/- at the relevant time and the insurance company cannot be asked to indemnify the insured beyond the outer limit of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also invited my attention to an application filed before this Court by the insurance company under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure wherein they have prayed that the carbon copy of the insurance policy is annexed as A. I have gone through both the files but I am unable to find the copy of the policy along with this application. It appears that the insurance company has deliberately withheld the copy of the insurance policy as they did not choose to file the same either before the Tribunal or before this Court in spite of making an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure Code. Thus, there is no option but to draw an adverse inference against the insurance company because they did not deliberately file the copy of the insurance policy. This demolishes the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company. If the policy has been placed on the record either before this Court or before the Tribunal perhaps the consideration might not have been different. But in absence of the policy being placed on the record an adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal is reaffirmed by not filing the same even before this Court after moving the application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the argument that the statutory liability as per the terms of the policy is Rs. 50,000/- cannot be sustained. In somewhat similar situation a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narain Das Mehta, 1986 ACJ 919 (Rajasthan) held that the burden is on the insurance company to prove the statutory liability by placing the policy on the record. In case of National Insurance Co. (supra) the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Ltd. v. Narain Das Mehta, 1986 ACJ 919 (Rajasthan) held that the burden is on the insurance company to prove the statutory liability by placing the policy on the record. In case of National Insurance Co. (supra) the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/-. It was argued before the learned single Judge that merely because the insurance policy was not proved therefore, the liability of the insurance company could not be treated as unlimited. The learned single Judge held that the burden was on the insurance company to prove the policy and since it has failed to discharge its burden therefore, the insurance company was saddled with the compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench and an attempt was made to file the copy of the insurance policy and it was observed that the first appeal has remained pending for 9 years before the learned single Judge and the insurance company did not produce the copy of the insurance policy and again it was sought to be produced before the Division Bench but that was not accepted and the order of the learned single Judge was affirmed. 6. In the present case also the insurance company has failed to discharge its burden by producing the copy of the insurance policy either before the Tribunal or before this Court. Thus, the adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal is well justified, in the present case also. In this view of the matter there is no merit in both these appeals filed by the insurance company. 7. This brings me to the cross-objections filed by Gopal Dass wherein it has been urged that the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced. The Tribunal after considering over the matter held that the injured Gopal Dass has remained on leave for 67 days and he had to undergo medical treatment for his injuries. As a result of this accident his hearing power has been affected and for this he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Looking to the injuries the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- which cannot be said to be too low so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present case. As a result of this accident his hearing power has been affected and for this he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Looking to the injuries the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- which cannot be said to be too low so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the cross-objections filed by Gopal Dass. 8. In the result, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 176 of 1983 filed by Meera Devi and others is allowed in part and the amount of compensation is increased to Rs. 1,20,000/- with 9 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. All the non-claimants except U.P. Roadways and driver Ram Bharoselal shall be jointly and individually liable. The cross-objections of Gopal Dass are rejected. Likewise the appeals filed by the insurance company and the cross-objection of Nemi Chand are also rejected. Gopal Dass shall be entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition from the Respondents except U.P. Roadways and driver Ram Bharoselal. The direction given by the Tribunal regarding distribution of the amount is maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Orders accordingly. *******