JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated January 13, 1988 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. On December 1, 1985, Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari, PW 4 was coming to Udaipur from the side of Chittorgarh on his scooter No. RJG 2790. On the back seat his younger brother Surendra Prasad (deceased) was sitting. When the scooter was passing near the Daroli Querry Mines at about 5 p.m. Bus No. RSL 1226 was coming from the opposite direction. It was being driven by its driver Ram Singh (respondent No. 3) with an excessive speed. A Roadways bus was going towards Udaipur ahead the scooter. The respondent No. 3 Ram Singh rashly and negligently crossed the Roadways bus, brought the bus to his wrong side and dashed the said scooter. As a result thereof,the driver of the scooter Rameshwar Prasad and the deceased Surendra Prasad fell down from their scooter and received serious injuries. The Roadways bus stopped and its passengers took the injured persons to the hospital. Surendra Prasad could not be saved despite best treatment and he succumbed to his Injuries on December 8, 1985. A petition was filed under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (here in after to be called as 'the Act') by his widow and son, claiming Rs- 2,18 000/- as compensation against the bus driver Ram Singh, bus owner M/s Thanmal Mohanlal Choudhary (appellant) and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited. The owner admitted in his written statement that the accident took place and stated that the accident took place while the scooterist was overtaking the Roadways bus. The Insurance Company averred that the accident did not take place due to the negligence and carelessness of the bus driver Ram Singh but it took place due to the fault of the scooterist. The driver Ram Singh did not put his appearance despite sufficient service of summons and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the claimants, the Tribunal passed the said award. The owner and the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence during the trial. 3. The driver Ram Singh did not put his appearance despite sufficient service of summons and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the claimants, the Tribunal passed the said award. The owner and the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence during the trial. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place while the scooterist Rameshwar Prasad, AW 4 was trying to overtake the Roadways bus and it did not take place on account of any negligence or carelessness of the bus driver Ram Singh. There is no substance in this contention. On the basis of the evidence of the scooter Driver Rameshwar Prasad, AW 4 and eye witness Laxmi Narain, AW 2 the Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place while the bus No. RSL 1228 was crossing the Roadways bus. They have specifically stated on oath that this bus after crossing the Roadways bus came to its wrong side and dashed with the scooter. They have specifically denied that the accident took place while the scooterist was overtaking the Roadways bus. As already observed above, the appellant (owner of the bus) and the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence. Even the driver Ram Singh could not dare to come in the witness box. Thus the claimants' evidence has gone unrebutted on this point also. 4. The statements of Laxmi Narain AW 2 and Rameshwar Prasad AW 4 find corroboration from the site plan Ex. 2. The place of accident has been shown by 'A' in this site plan. According to it, the accident took place towards the correct side of the scooterist and on the wrong side of the said bus No. RSL 1228. This could only happen when this bus came towards its wrong side after crossing the Roadways bus. It could not be the place and the accident would have taken place while overtaking the Roadways bus by the scooterist and in that case the place of accident would have been towards the wrong side of the scooterist and on the correct side of the bus No. RSL 1228. Thus the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver Ram Singh of the bus No. RSL 1228 owned by the appellant. 5. Thus the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver Ram Singh of the bus No. RSL 1228 owned by the appellant. 5. The next question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is excessive. It is well proved from the evidence on record that at the time of the death, the deceased Surendra Prasad Tiwari was 37 years of age, he was serving as a Telephone Operator and his salary at that time was Rs. 1250/- per month. As already observed above, the evidence of the claimants has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The Tribunal has rightly held the dependency at rate of Rs. 800/-per month. The Tribunal was applying the multiple of 28 but it applied it as 20 as it was so claimed in the claim petition. After applying this multiple of 20, the amount of Rs 1,92,000/- has rightly been arrived at. The deceased Surendra Prasad died after 8 days of the accident and remained in the Government Hospital, Udaipur during this period for treatment. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,000/- under the head of treatment and other expenses. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. It is rather inadequate Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded to the claimants under the heads of consortium and loss of love and affection. This also cannot be said to be excessive. Thus there exist no good ground for making any deduction in the amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants. 6. The next question is about the extent of liability of the Insurance Company (respondent No. 4). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 4 insured the said bus No. RSL 1228 comprehensively and it issued the Insurance Policy whose duplicate copy is paper No. C9/59 and as such the respondent No. 4 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation He relied upon Abdul Shahid v. Naraini, [ 1988 ACJ 887 (FB) (Raj)]. Virendra Kumar v. Smt. Beena, 1988 Transport and Accident Cases 346 (Raj.) , and Chand Kanwar v. Manna Ram, 1986 ACJ 269 (Raj.). 7. Virendra Kumar v. Smt. Beena, 1988 Transport and Accident Cases 346 (Raj.) , and Chand Kanwar v. Manna Ram, 1986 ACJ 269 (Raj.). 7. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 that the issuance of 'Commercial Vehicles Comprehensive (India) Insurance Policy' does not mean that the Insurance Company has taken unlimited liability for the payment of compensation to third parties. He further contended that the limit of liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- is clearly mentioned in this policy and in the absence of an agreement for unlimited liability the Insurance Company is not liable to pay more than Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. He relied upon National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, [1988 ACJ 270 (Supreme Court)] and Sohan Lal v. Bal Swaroop Bhatnagar [ 1987 ACJ 113 (DB) Raj.]. 8. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited. There is a clause regarding the limit of liability in the Insurance Policy, paper No. C9/59. It runs as follows : "Limits of Liability - Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under section 11-1 (i) in respect of any one accident: Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under sec. 11-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event of Rs. 50,000/- " 9. Item No. 2 of column "NON OWN DAMAGE" runs as under : "2. Add for Increase of limits of indemnity. Rs........................." 10. Section II of the Policy deals with the liability to third parties. 11-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event of Rs. 50,000/- " 9. Item No. 2 of column "NON OWN DAMAGE" runs as under : "2. Add for Increase of limits of indemnity. Rs........................." 10. Section II of the Policy deals with the liability to third parties. Its relevant portions run as under : "Sec. II - Liability to third parties - [1] Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the Insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of : (i) 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 Motor Vehicles." According to the provisions of section 95(2)(b) of the Act, as existing on the date of the accident (1-12-1985), the maximum liability of the Insurance. Company was Rs. 50,000/-. It is clear from the Insurance Policy that no additional amount was paid for increase in limit of indemnity. Thus the maximum liability of the Insurance Company was as provided in the Act i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. It has been observed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore [1988 ACJ 270 (Supreme Court) para 7] , as follows : "A perusal of the policy, therefore, indicates that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle falling under section II(1)(i) has been confined to "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939." This liability, as is apparent from clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act. was at the relevant time Rs. 20,000/- only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case falling under section 11(1)(i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (IEV) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000/-. 20,000/- only. The details of the premium also indicate that no additional premium with regard to a case falling under section 11(1)(i) was paid by the owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. It is only the vehicle which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (IEV) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000/-. In this view of the matter the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had in the instant case undertaken an unlimited liability does not obviously have any substance The liability under the policy in the instant case was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act, namely, Rs. 20,000/-. An award against the appellant could not, therefore, have been made in excess of the said statutory liability." It is correct that in this reported case the accident took place prior to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1969. By this Amendment Act no change was effected in Section 95(2) except raising the limit from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In Abdul Shahid v. Naraini, 1988 ACJ 887 (FB) Raj.), this judgment of the Supreme Court was not considered though decided earlier but it was not reported by the time this Full Bench judgment was delivered. I am bound with this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus there is no force in the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. *******