JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—These appeals arise out of the same accident and common award dated 22-9-1981 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una. Therefore, they are being taken up together for consideration and decision by this judgment. 2. The brief facts are that the Hamirpur Co-operative Society Limited, Hamirpur (to be called hereinafter as the Transport Society), is registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. It runs passenger buses on number of routes in that region of the State Bus—HIM 2763 was being driven by Shri Tulsi Ram, Driver, from Hoshiarpur to Hamirpur on 13-10-1970. The Bus was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This is the first vehicle in question. 3. The other vehicle in question is Jeep with Registration No. HIM 7066. It belonged to the Public Works Department and was being driven, at the time of the accident, by Shri P. C. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Tube Well Sub-Division, Gagret. 4. Both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions and the head-on-collision between them took place at about 11.45 A. M. at a place in between Mile Stone 70/4 KM and 70/5 KM on Mubarikpur Gagret Road. The result of the collision was that the bus rolled into a nearby khud while the jeep went a few paces back and then rested against the parapet with its face towards the middle of the road. The consequence of the accident was that Shri S. R. Jaswal, occupying the jeep and Raj Kumar, a bus passenger, died of fatal injuries whereas Shri Pritam Singh, Smt. Harbant Kaur and a few others sustained bodily injuries in the accident. 5. Both the vehicles were damaged on account of this collision. Besides, the versions of number of other witnesses, Shri Vishwa Mitter (PW 15), Motor Vehicle Inspector, Dharamshala, had described them in detail in his statement, the relevant part of which is as under: "BUS HIM-2763 j 1. Front both springs o.k. 2. Front right side bracket front found broken. 3. Rear both spring o.k. intact. 4. Perpellar shaft o.k. 5. Steering support bracket broken after the accident, other joints o.k. 6. All the brake pipe line o.k., no leakage found. Foot brake cannot be checked as brake pedal was found bent. 7. Chessis completely bent. 8. Body completely damaged. 9. Front both shock absorbers were intact. 10. 3. Rear both spring o.k. intact. 4. Perpellar shaft o.k. 5. Steering support bracket broken after the accident, other joints o.k. 6. All the brake pipe line o.k., no leakage found. Foot brake cannot be checked as brake pedal was found bent. 7. Chessis completely bent. 8. Body completely damaged. 9. Front both shock absorbers were intact. 10. Front right side tyre found burst out by striking against bumper of the jeep, lit Front show radiator and bumper damaged. JEEP HIM 7066: 1. Front right side spring main and 2nd leaf bent. 2. Front left side spring main leaf broken from rear end. 3. Front right side tyre rim came out from wheel. 4. Steering wheel bent. 5. Radiator slightly damaged. 6. Front right side bumper fog light broken. Right side head light broken. 7. Front show mudguard oil chamber damaged. 8. Front screen glass o.k. steering column broken. 9. Foot brake o. k. 10 All the ends o.k." 6. The claimants preferred claim petitions under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Pritam Singh (PW 17) and Shrimati Harbant Kaur (PW 18) claimed compensation as they suffered personal injuries person whereas Shrimati Parveen Lata, Master Rakesh (minor), Master Satish (minor), through Shrimati Parveen Lata, their next friend, and Shrimati Satyavati, widow of Shri Sardari Lai Kapoor (dependent-heirs of late Shri Raj Kumar) and Shrimati Om Piari, widow of Shri S. R. Jaswal, Kumari Sarmila, Kumari Nagina and Arun (all minors through their mother as next friend) and Shrimati Devki Devi, widow of Mehtab, claimed compensation as heir-dependants of late Shri S. R. Jaswal. 7. Various amounts of compensation were claimed on the ground that the accident took place due to the rash and composite negligence of the Drivers of both the vehicles. These claim petitions were opposed by the respondents. The Drivers accused each other for the accident alleging excessive speed and lack of control, care and caution, besides, failure to keep their respective vehicles on the proper side of the road. M/s. New India Assurance Company, a party-respondent in the claim petitions, disputed the liability for the payment of compensation. Its alternative case was that the liability, at the most could be Rs. 20,000 maximum, including the liability of the passengers. 8. After trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the Driver of the Bus responsible for the accident and awarded different amounts of compensation. Its alternative case was that the liability, at the most could be Rs. 20,000 maximum, including the liability of the passengers. 8. After trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the Driver of the Bus responsible for the accident and awarded different amounts of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by this award, these appeals have been preferred. 9. Shri Chhabil Dass, who appears for the Transport-Society in these appeals, made all efforts to assail the award. The principal objection relates to the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) regarding the responsibility for the accident. In other words, the protest of the learned Counsel is that in view of the overwhelming evidence on the record, the finding of the Tribunal holding the Bus Driver responsible for the collision cannot be arrived at. In order to substantiate his submission, statements of Shri Gian Singh (PW 6), Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb, Shri Vishwa Mitter (PW 15), Motor Vehicle Inspector, Shri Pritam Singh (PW 17), Shrimati Harbant Kaur (PW 18), Shri Arvind Pille (RW 2), Junior Engineer, Shri R. D. Sharma (RW 3), a contractor in the Public Works Department, Shri Hans Raj (RW 4), Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5), Shri Tulsi Ram (RW 6) and Shri G. D. Mahajan (RW 7), which throw light on the cause, impact and consequences of the collision, have been meticulously referred to, discussed and analysed. 10. Shri Gian Singh (PW 6) is the Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb. He had reached at the spot in about 15 to 20 minutes after the accident and had found that the jeep was on the wrong side of the road whereas the bus was off the road in a nallah. The jeep was facing the direction in which it was going at the time of the accident; it collided with the front side of the bus. At the time of the accident, the bus was climbing whereas the jeep was coming down. There was a bend in the road the place of the accident but vehicles were visible to each other upto a distance of 100 feet. At the time of the accident, the bus was climbing whereas the jeep was coming down. There was a bend in the road the place of the accident but vehicles were visible to each other upto a distance of 100 feet. The width of the road at the place of the accident was 20 feet and two vehicles could pass each other He states that the jeep was on the wrong side of the road when it collided with the bus but came to the correct side of the road by the impact of the bus due to retreat. The road, at the place of the accident, is slightly up-hill for the bus and downhill for the jeep. 11. Shri Vishwa Mitter (PW 15), Motor Vehicle Inspector, states that the jeep was on the road side touching the railing on the back side whereas the other side of the jeep was in the middle of the road. The road was sufficiently wide and both the vehicles could pass each other without any collision. The cause of the accident, according to him, was the speed of 40 miles per hour. The jeep had retreated after the collision to about 10/12 feet and due to the bursting of the tyre, the steering went out of control due to which the vehicle was pulled towards the side of the bursted tyre. 12. Claimant Pritam Singh (PW 17), was, at that time, a passenger in the bus with Smt. Harbant Kaur (PW 18). He saw the jeep coming from the opposite side. The jeep and the bus were going on the high speed and at the time of crossing each other ; no horn was blown nor speed slowed by either of the drivers. They collided despite enough space for crossing each other. He received serious injuries on the face and eyes and was treated at Gagret, Hoshiarpur and Ludhiana Hospitals for about 1-1/2 months. All through he had to bear considerable pain with the result that he did not have proper setting of teeth to enable him to take his meals properly. He had to spend 2500 to 3000 in the hospital. Being an agriculturist, due to non-attention, he lost about Rs. 15,000 from agriculture income. The bumper of the jeep may have hit the tyre of the bus, he states. He had to spend 2500 to 3000 in the hospital. Being an agriculturist, due to non-attention, he lost about Rs. 15,000 from agriculture income. The bumper of the jeep may have hit the tyre of the bus, he states. He further states that the Driver continued driving the bus with the same speed even when it was about 100 yards away from the jeep and the driver could also see it from a distance of about 100 yards. He further states that the bus driver had gone a little towards the right side of the road. Had he remained on the left side, the accident could not have occurred. The jeep had also trespassed on its right side of the road and was not keeping to its proper left side at the time of the accident. Had the jeep been on its left side in full, it was possible that the accident could have been avoided. 13. Shrimati Harbant Kaur (PW 18) states that the bus as well as the jeep were in high speed and while approaching each other, they did not take precaution to remain on their respective side nor did they slow down the speed while crossing each other. She had fracture on her left leg on the thigh and remained in the hospital at Ludhiana for two months with plaster fixed to her leg ; so remained confined to bed and even after the removal of the plaster, she had to remain in the hospital for physiotherapy application. She appears to be a Teacher, so could not attend her duties for six months. She still feels pain in the leg while walking and her feet get swollen. Her left leg is now slightly shortened and she limps. She alleges the expenditure of Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 3,500 in the hospital and has placed some of the bills of the treatment in evidence. 14. Shri Arvind Pilley (RW 2), a Junior Engineer, posted at Gagret, states that Shri P. C. Gupta (who was driving the jeep at the time of the accident) is senior to him in the office and at the relevant time he was working under S. R. Jaswal, deceased, occupant of the jeep. He states that the jeep was being driven on the left side of the road and the speed may be about 30 to 40 KM per hour. He states that the jeep was being driven on the left side of the road and the speed may be about 30 to 40 KM per hour. There was sufficient space on the road for crossing of the two vehicles and the accident took place because the bus driver could not negotiate the curve properly due to over speed. He also occupied a seat in the front portion of the jeep by the side of Shri S. R. Jaswal. The width of the road was 18 to 20 feet out of which metalled portion may be 12 feet. He states that he could not say as to when their jeep took a turn but it did so by moving towards its right. He could not say if the bumper of the jeep had struck against the right tyre of the bus and that if the tyres of the bus had bursted by collision. He could not definitely say whether the jeep struck against the bus or the bus struck against the jeep as he could not see the impact of the two vehicles although the collision was there. He denies that the jeep was being driven at an excessive speed and it had gone on the wrong side while taking the curve or it had struck against the tyre of the bus which bursted due to the impact. He states that at the collision site, the road is levelled and admits that the jeep was going downwards and the bus was coming up but denies that the accident was caused due to the careless and negligent driving of the jeep. 15. Shri R. D. Sharma (RW 3), a Contractor in the Public Works Department, states that the bus was going in good speed and the Driver of the bus was asked to be slow but he said that he was to pick up a Barat at 2 p.m. The jeep was on its own side and the bus struck the jeep which was not keeping to its own side. He could not see the speed of the jeep. His arm was dislocated which be got treated from a private person and not from any hospital. The police did not record his statement about this accident. 16. Shri Hans Raj (RW 4) is one of the occupants of the bus. He could not see the speed of the jeep. His arm was dislocated which be got treated from a private person and not from any hospital. The police did not record his statement about this accident. 16. Shri Hans Raj (RW 4) is one of the occupants of the bus. He states that the bus was going up from a curve while the jeep was going down. The bus driver had blown the horn while the jeep driver did not do so. The bus was going quite slow and the tyre of the bus was bursted when the jeep struck it with the result that the bus rolled down on its right side. He received injuries on his arm and was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police and was examined as a witness in the criminal court for the prosecution. The jeep was in high speed. The bus had the impact with the jeep in the same speed at which it was being driven on approaching the curve. The jeep also did not slow down its speed while approaching the bus Before the collision, one tyre of the bus was on the katcha portion of the road. 17. Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5) also appeared as a witness and holds the driver of the bus responsible for the collision. He states that the bus was moving at a high speed and the bus went ahead about 18 feet after the collision and struck against an iron railing and then rolled down to the other side of the road. The speed of the jeep was 20 to 25 Km. per hour and it had just come out of the curve when the bus struck it. Left tyre of the jeep was already on the katcha portion of the road and he had been blowing horn at every curve and it was due to his alert and cautious driving that the jeep was saved from going down the road and the accident was caused due to the negligence of the bus driver. The jeep came back on the impact with the bus, say about 6/ only. He was officially driving the jeep and he was on official duty at that time and Gian Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, had come on the spot and examined various aspects of the matter. The jeep came back on the impact with the bus, say about 6/ only. He was officially driving the jeep and he was on official duty at that time and Gian Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, had come on the spot and examined various aspects of the matter. He had seen the bus for the first time when it was just 10 feet out of the curve and the accident took place. The speed of the bus was 50 miles per hour and he had shown to the police that he was out of the curve at that time and the bus was about 150 feet away when he saw it first. 18. Shri Tulsi Ram also appeared as R W. 6. Like Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5), he throws the whole blame on the jeep driver Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5). He states that the bus was going up and the jeep was coming down. The bus was on its left side and the jeep coming at the speed of 40 to 45 kms. per hour, was slightly on the wrong side of the road at the curve and the right side portion of the jeep bumper struck against the right side front tyre of the bus with the result that this tyre got bursted. It caused fracture to his arm with the result that the bus could not be controlled. It went down to its right side and the jeep got pushed back and was held up by the parapet wall. The accident took place when the jeep had come out of the curve and the witness was still approaching the curve. The jeep was not on its left side of the road but was towards its right side. The jeep had crossed 4/5 feet from the middle of the curve when the accident took place. The Driver of the jeep did not slow down the speed while approaching the bus after seeing it coming from the opposite side. 19. Shri G. D. Mahajan (RW 7), Executive Engineer, has also appeared as a witness but his evidence is not of any relevance. 20. Shri Deepak Gupta, who appears for the New India Assurance Company Limited, also holds the jeep driver responsible for the accident and challenges the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect. 19. Shri G. D. Mahajan (RW 7), Executive Engineer, has also appeared as a witness but his evidence is not of any relevance. 20. Shri Deepak Gupta, who appears for the New India Assurance Company Limited, also holds the jeep driver responsible for the accident and challenges the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect. Further, he assails the extent of the liability of the Company, as held by the Tribunal. This later aspect of the matter will be discussed and decided in the later part of the judgment. 21. Shri Chhabil Dass submits that the evidence discloses that the driver of the bus alone cannot be held responsible for the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal should have held, at least, that both the drivers of these vehicles are joint-tort-feasors. In order to support his contention, reference is made to 1985 ACJ 98, Kota Sand Company and another v. Santosh Talwar and others. In this case, the accident occurred on November 1!, 1970 between a truck, No. RJR 5757, owned by M/s. Kota Sand Company, Gumanpura, and a jeep, No. RJR 3400, owned by the State of Rajasthan, which was being driven, at the relevant time, by the Executive Engineer, Hydrolic Division, J. S. Dam. It collided with the truck (RJR 5757) driven by Shri Raghvir Singh, Driver, of the Company. They were coming from the opposite directions. The truck was being driven so rashly and negligently that the right portion of the mud-guard of the truck collided with the stepney, which was fixed on the right side of the jeep and, consequently, the right wheel of the jeep also collided with the back right wheel of the truck. Due to the impact of the collision, the jeep overturned and fell at a distance of about 57 feet from the place of occurrence. The bolts of the stepney were broken; the stepney fell down at a very distant place; the jeep was seriously damaged ; and its right portion, where Shri Talwar was sitting, was smashed. The occupants were seriously injured, including the driver. The allegation was that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the truck. The opposite party also alleged that the entire negligence was due to Mr. Iyengar, the driver of the jeep, which was being driven at a high speed. The occupants were seriously injured, including the driver. The allegation was that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the truck. The opposite party also alleged that the entire negligence was due to Mr. Iyengar, the driver of the jeep, which was being driven at a high speed. The Tribunal held, inter alia, that both the drivers of the jeep and the truck were negligent. Had they not been negligent, the accident could have been avoided as they had seen each other on a straight road from a long distance. The jeep was being driven, according to the evidence, at a speed of 60 kms. per hour and the speed of the truck was very well known from the way the jeep was thrown at a distance of about 57 feet from the place of occurrence. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the drivers were negligent. 22. Reference is also made to 1982 ACJ 176, Nagappaiah v. New India Assu. Co. Ltd. and another. In this case, it was found that the collision tock place in the middle of the road between two lorries coming from opposite direction. The right side of the vehicles were damaged and the evidence disclosed that both lorries were being driven rashly and negligently by their drivers. Therefore, it was held to be a case of composite negligence. 23. Two other cases, to the same effect, from which assistance was taken by Shri Chhabil Dass, are 1979 ACJ 322, Abdul Rahman v. Soon Ah Hai and 1978 ACJ 443, Jam Shri Sataji Digvijay Singhji and others v. Daud Taiyab and others. 24. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, has also referred to the site inspection by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal as well as the statements of Shri Arvind Pille (RW 2), Shri R. D. Sharma (RW 3) and Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5). Many of these witnesses have supported Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5), who was the driver of the jeep at the relevant time and Shri R. D. Sharma (RW 3) is a contractor in the Public Works Department to which Shri P. C. Gupta (RW 5) belongs. 25. Shri Arvind Pille (RW 2) is also a Junior Engineer posted at the same place in the Public Works Department. 25. Shri Arvind Pille (RW 2) is also a Junior Engineer posted at the same place in the Public Works Department. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Transport-Society strenuously assails their versions and characterises them untrue in view of the position at the spot and the statements of other witnesses. He further assails the spot inspection by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the same does not depict the exact position which, according to him, is narrated by Shri Gian Singh (PW 6) and asserts that the criticism as to correctness and admissibility of his statement in such like proceedings is of no consequence. 26. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the record on this aspect of the matter, the conclusions which can be safely drawn are that the accident took place on 13-10-1970. Two vehicles, viz., bus No. HIM 2763 and Jeep No. HIM 7066, collided with each other, the place of accident is immediately near the close of the curve Major parts of the vehicles involved in the collision are the right sides—in the case of the bus, its right side front tyre got bursted and in the case of the jeep, its right side tyre came out of the hub. The bus fell into the khud nearby whereas the jeep struck against the parapet and its face remained towards the middle line of the road. Evidence discloses further that both the vehicles were in high speed and they had intruded towards their right sides. The bus was going up-hill while the jeep was coming down-hill. However, the gradient v/as minimal. 27. Bus is a heavy vehicle and occupies much of the space on the road as compared to a smaller vehicle, a jeep in the present case. The trespass appears to be more of the bus as compared to the jeep. However, both had ample opportunity to avoid the accident by slightly diverting to their side of the road. Facts disclose emergence of a clear case of composite negligence in the ratio of 60% (bus) and 40% (Jeep). The conclusion on this aspect, therefore, is that there is composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both these vehicles in the ratio of 60% (bus) and 40% (jeep). 28. The second point argued by Shri Chhabil Dass, relates to the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The conclusion on this aspect, therefore, is that there is composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both these vehicles in the ratio of 60% (bus) and 40% (jeep). 28. The second point argued by Shri Chhabil Dass, relates to the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is argued that the award is too excessive. 29. Reference is made to Accident Claim Petition No. 7 of 1972, Om Piari etc v. Tulsi Ram etc., against which F. A. O.s Nos. 87 of 1981 and 104 of 1981, have been filed. In this case, the deceased was Shri S. R. Jaswal, a Junior Engineer, in the Public Works Department of the State at the relevant time. He was 35 years of age as per the statements of PWs 8 and 11. The claimants are his widow, Om Piari (aged 29 years), two minor daughters Sarmila and Nagina (aged 9 and 7 years respectively) and one minor son (aged 5 years) and the total amount of compensation claimed is Rs. 2,00,000. 30. On the quantum of compensation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal sought assistance from 1980 ACJ 1, H. P. Road Transport Corporation v. Pandit Jai Ram and others, which was later on followed in 1980 ACJ 437, State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Lal Kochhar and others for calculating Units of family. The family of the deceased consisted of two adults and 3 minors as there is dependant mother also. Therefore, the total Units come to 9. 31. Shri Chhabil Dass disputes the claim of the appellants for applying multiplier of 20 years. It is asserted that multiplier of 15 years should have been resorted to by the Tribunal. Reference to 1985 ACJ 570, Mandip Kaur v. Ram Lai and others, 1984 ACT 224, Om Parkash Dalmia v. Bina Saha and others, 1984 ACJ 316, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Satinder Sharma, 1983 ACJ 290, Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and others v. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others, 1982 ACJ (Supp) 466, Satyalata and others v. Anwarkhan and another, and 1980 ACJ 1, H. P. Road Transport Corporation v. Pandit Jai Ram and others, was made. 32. There is no doubt as to the earnings of the deceased. Ex. PW \\\A is the detailed account of his emoluments during the period of his service till his retirement as Executive Engineer at the age of 58 years. 32. There is no doubt as to the earnings of the deceased. Ex. PW \\\A is the detailed account of his emoluments during the period of his service till his retirement as Executive Engineer at the age of 58 years. The statement of Shri Khairu Ram, Head Clerk (PW 11), shows that the deceased was appointed as Graduate Overseer (mechanic) and he was promoted as S.D.O. on 15-9-1970. It further shows that on 14-10-1970 he was getting total emoluments to the tune of Rs 615 per month. 33. Shrimati Om Piari (PW 8) states that the deceased was contributing Rs. 500 per month towards the household expenses. In the absence of any protest against this amount to the contrary, it is safe to consider it as the monthly contribution to the family. This means that the deceased was spending about Rs. 115 on himself in accordance with the formula which was applied while deciding claim petitions in Pandit Jai Rams case (supra). The total amount of dependency comes to Rs. 500 per month and yearly Rs. 6,000 and by applying the multiplier of 20 years, the total compensation would come to Rs. 1,20,000 and after adding Rs. 3,000 as the conventional amount, the total amount payable will be Rs 1,23,000 although the claimants claim Rs. 1,26,552 through their appeal (F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 104 of 1981). 34. After examining the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am further of the opinion that the multiplier of 20 years has been rightly selected and applied by the Tribunal. However, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,23,000 and not Rs. 88,440, as calculated by the Tribunal. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to this extent and the enhanced amount be also paid to the claimants in F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 104 .of 1981 in accordance with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till final payment. F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 85 of 1981: 35. Shri Rajkumar, deceased, aged 36 years, left behind his widow Smt. Parveen Lata, aged 35 years, his mother Smt. Satyavati, aged 56 years, and two minor sons, S/Shri Satish and Rakesh (aged 15 and 10 respectively). F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 85 of 1981: 35. Shri Rajkumar, deceased, aged 36 years, left behind his widow Smt. Parveen Lata, aged 35 years, his mother Smt. Satyavati, aged 56 years, and two minor sons, S/Shri Satish and Rakesh (aged 15 and 10 respectively). They claimed an amount of rupees four lacs as compensation. Tbe Tribunal calculated six units—two adults and two minors. He was Ahrti and a Dalai at Amritsar. He possessed sound health. His yearly income, as per Ex. PX/6 and Ex. PX/7 (Income Tax Orders) was Rs. 8,280. So, his monthly income was Rs. 700 in round figure. The Tribunal kept apart Rs. 200 per month which the deceased was spending on himself; so he was contributing Rs. 500 per month to his family. Thus the total compensation assessed was Rs. 1,02,000 and by adding conventional figure of Rs. 3,000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 with proportionate costs in favour of the claimants. I think this assessment is perfectly justified. There is, therefore, no scope to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Moreover, no appeal has been filed by the claimants in this case. F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 89 of 1981: 36. It appears from the evidence that Pritam Singh is a big landlord who was confined to bed in Chandigarh hospital from 13-10-1970 to 11-11-1970 and then from 16-11-1970 to 21-12-1970. He sustained injuries to his eye. His jaw was dislocated and face disfigured. His teeth had to be re-set. He states that due to these injuries, he had to suffer a lot. His life was shortened. He has produced documents Ex. PW 17/6 to Ex. PW 11/11 about medical expenses incurred by him. He has also claimed expenses relating to hospital treatment right from the date of the accident to his discharge from Ludhiana hospital. He states that in agricultural operations, he had suffered loss. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 3,000 as medical expenses and Rs. 8,0l0 on other accounts. This award cannot be considered to be arbitrary or unreasonable; so no argument against the same is tenable. F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 86 of 1981: 37. Smt. Harbant Kaur is a Language Teacher in the scale of Rs. 170—-350. She was also a passenger alongwith Shri Pritam Singh claimant. She suffered leg fracture on the left leg thigh. F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 86 of 1981: 37. Smt. Harbant Kaur is a Language Teacher in the scale of Rs. 170—-350. She was also a passenger alongwith Shri Pritam Singh claimant. She suffered leg fracture on the left leg thigh. She remained in the hospital at Ludhiana for two months and then with plaster in her leg for two months, she had to confine herself in the bed. She had to go to the hospital for physiotherapy application for one month. She could not attend her school for six months. She states that she has spent about Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 3,500 on her treatment in the hospital. She proved documents Ex. P. W. 18/1 to Ex. P. W. 18/5. She has not seriously and convincingly proved the impact and future effect of her injury and deformity. However, she has been able to establish the same to the extent of the award given by the Tribunal and I do not see any unreasonableness in the amount awarded to her. F. A. O. (M. V. A.) No. 106 of 1981: 38. The last question relates to the apportionment of liability to pay the compensation. 39. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the New India Assurance Company Ltd., submits that it was specifically pleaded before the Tribunal that under the terms of the policy of Insurance and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the per passenger liability was only Rs. 2,000 and no more. However, he agrees that as per the existing law, the liability is Rs. 5,000 per passenger. The Tribunal awarded, in the case of Pritam Singh, a passenger in the bus, who received injuries, Rs. 11,000 as compensation although the liability was only Rs. 5,000. The same is the submission of the learned Counsel regarding the claim of Smt. Harbant Kaur to whom the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,000 as compensation and held the Company liable for this amount. In the case of Shri S. R. Jaswal, a jeep occupant, the liability was fixed at Rs. 50,000 while in the case of Shri Rajkumar, a bus passenger, the liability of the Company was held to be Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 5,000. 40. 8,000 as compensation and held the Company liable for this amount. In the case of Shri S. R. Jaswal, a jeep occupant, the liability was fixed at Rs. 50,000 while in the case of Shri Rajkumar, a bus passenger, the liability of the Company was held to be Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 5,000. 40. In order to examine this contention of the Company, it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of section 95 of the Act: "95 (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall 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 Workmens 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 more 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. ** ** ** ** 41. Shri Deepak Gupta makes reference to 1987 ACJ 872, M. A". ** ** ** ** 41. Shri Deepak Gupta makes reference to 1987 ACJ 872, M. A". Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty and others, to support his submission as to the extent of liability of his client and completely relies on this judgment. It is pertinent to quote paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 of this judgment: "3. Section 95 of the Act sets out the requirements of the policies of insurance which must be taken by the owners of motor vehicles and the limits of liabilities there under. A policy of insurance should subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the limits specified in sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act......... 4. Section 95 (2) (b) as it existed before its amendment in 1982 dealt with the limits of the liability of an insurer in the case of motor vehicles in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Sub-clause (i) of section 95 (2) (b) provided that in respect of death of or injury to persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward a limit of Rs. 50,000 in all was the limit of the liability of the insurer. Sub-clause (ii) dealt with the liability in respect of death of or injury to passengers. Under that sub-clause there were two specific limits on the liability of the insurer in the case of motor vehicles carrying passengers. The first limit related to the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident. It was fixed at Rs. 50,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry not more than thirty passengers, at Rs. 75,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers and at Rs. 1,00,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than sixty passengers. The said sub-clause proceeded to lay down the other limit in respect of each passenger by providing that subject to the limits aforesaid as regards the aggregate liability, the liability extended upto Rs. 10,000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000 for each individual passenger in any other case. Neither of the two limits can be ignored. 10,000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000 for each individual passenger in any other case. Neither of the two limits can be ignored. In the present case the vehicle in question being a bus carrying passengers for hire or reward registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers the limit of the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident was Rs. 75,000 and subject to the said limit the liability in respect of each individual passenger was Rs. 5,000. We find it difficult to hold that the limit prescribed in section 95 (2) (b) (ii) (4) was only the minimum liability prescribed by law. The amount mentioned in that provision provides the maximum amount payable by an insurer in respect of each passenger who has suffered on account of the accident. This appears to us to be a fair construction of section 95 (2) of the Act as it existed at the time when the accident took place. Our view receives support from at least two decisions of this court. 5. In Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co., 1971 ACJ 206 (SC), the motor vehicle involved was a passenger bus. On account of an accident which took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle two persons died on the spot. Their legal representatives claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the legal representatives of each of the two persons who had died on account of the accident, were entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,000 and directed that the entire sum should be paid by the insurance company. On appeal by the legal representatives as well as by the insurance company the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal representatives of each of the two deceased persons to Rs. 36,000 and also allowed the appeal of the insurance company and limited its liability to the tune of Rs. On appeal by the legal representatives as well as by the insurance company the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal representatives of each of the two deceased persons to Rs. 36,000 and also allowed the appeal of the insurance company and limited its liability to the tune of Rs. 2,000 in respect of each of the two deceased persons in accordance with section 95 (2) (b) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided that where the vehicle was a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of Rs. 20,000 and in respect of passengers a limit of Rs. 20,000 in all and Rs 2,000 in respect of an individual passengers if the vehicle was registered to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. The court observed that since in the said case the vehicle was one in which more than six persons were allowed to be carried the maximum liability imposed under section 95 (2) of the Act on the insurer was Rs. 2,000 per passenger though the total liability might go up to Rs. 20,000 in a given case where large number of persons had suffered on account of the accident. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the High Court insofar as the question of the liability of the insurer was concerned. 6 Clause (b) of section 95 (2) of the Act again came up for consideration before this court in Manjushri Raha v. B. L. Gupta, 1977 ACJ 134 (SC). In that case also the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident was a bus carrying passengers on a route in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The court followed the decision in the case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd., 1971 ACJ 206 (SC) and limited the liability of the insurer to Rs. 2,000 as provided by the Act at that time............ ** ** ** ** 13. Having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendments by Act 47 of 1982 we hold that the insurer was liable to pay upto Rs. 10;000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and upto Rs. 2,000 as provided by the Act at that time............ ** ** ** ** 13. Having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendments by Act 47 of 1982 we hold that the insurer was liable to pay upto Rs. 10;000 for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and upto Rs. 5,000 for each individual passenger in any other case. The judgment of the Kerala High Court against which this petition is filed has followed the above construction. We do not find any ground to interfere with it. This petition is, therefore, dismissed." 42. It is, therefore, clear that in view of the insurance policy marked as *X or in the alternative under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 5,000 per passenger instead of Rs. 50,000 as ordered by the Tribunal. In the case of third party, the liability of the Insurance Company is Rs. 50,000 43. No submission in opposition to this contention of Shri Deepak Gupta was raised by any of the Counsel appearing for the parties. 44. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Counsel, therefore, prevails and the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to this extent as well. 45. In view of the findings above, the State Government will pay 40 per cent of the total amount of compensation alongwith costs and interest awarded and payable under this judgment and the driver as well as the Society will be jointly and severally responsible for the payment of 60 per cent of the compensation alongwith interest and costs worked out and payable under this judgment after deducting the total liability of the Company, as held hereinabove. No costs in this Court. Order accordingly.