JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Barmer dated October 18, 1989 by which it has partly allowed claim petitions arising out of same accident and has awarded various amounts as compensation to the claimants as noted below : S.No. Number and year of Name of Amount awarded in Rs. Misc. Appeal MACT Case Deceased Injured 1 34/90 81/88 Gordhan - 1,46,000 2 38/90 83/88 Goparam - 78,000 3 39/90 86/88 Bagga Ram, - 1,01,000 4 40/90 12/89 Bagta Ram, - 84,000 5 33/90 88/88 - Dama Ram 39,000 6 35/90 79/88 - Mala Ram 42,000 7 36/90 77/88 - Amra Ram 60,000 8 37/90 75/88 - Rekha Ram 78,000 2. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On November 27, 1986, truck No. RRN 1145 was going from Jodhpur to Ahmedabad via Balotra. It was loaded with stone slabs. The deceased Bagga Ram, Gopa Ram, Bagta Ram and Gordhan and injured Amra Ram, Mala Ram, Rekha Ram, Dama Ram and Kana Ram boarded it. Each one of them paid Rs. 6/- as fare to its driver Pokar Ram (non- petitioner-respondent). It was being driven rashly and negligently by him. As a result thereof, the driver lost his control and the truck got turtled in between Loharia and Nakoda on Sindhari Road. The passengers Bagga Ram, Gopa Ram, Bagta Ram and Gordhan died on the spot and Amra Ram, Mala Ram, Rekha Ram and Dama Rain (claimants) and Kana Ram received serious injuries. The truck was owned by Mohd. Rafiq (non-petitioner-respondent and it was insured with the United' India Insurance Company Ltd. (non-petitioner-appellant), at the time of the accident. The claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased persons and also by the injured persons. After holding necessary trial, the Tribunal awarded the said amounts as compensation against the appellant Insurance Company only. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 133, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 did not permit any passenger to travel in a goods vehicle, there was thus a breach of the terms of the policy and as such the Insurance Company was not liable. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 133, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 did not permit any passenger to travel in a goods vehicle, there was thus a breach of the terms of the policy and as such the Insurance Company was not liable. He further contended that the Tribunal has passed awards only against the Insurance Company without making the insured liable to pay a single paisa in any case and as such no award could be passed against the Insurance Company. He lastly contended that the liability of the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'). He relied upon National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore, 1985 ACJ 270 and decision of this Court given in National Insurance Company v. Paras Kanwar, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 125 of 1992 and 7 other Miscellaneous appeals, decided on August 4, 1993 . 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that Insurance Company has utterly failed to prove that there had been a breach of terms of the policy, the said defence is not open to it and the Insurance company cannot avoid its liability on the plea that the truck was used for carrying passengers against the provisions of Rule 133, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951. He further contended that liability under tort arises out of a wrongful act including an illegal act. He also contended that this Court has power to modify the awards making the owner and driver of the offending truck liable to make payment of the amounts of compensation. He lastly contended that the interest should have been awarded at the rate of 15% per annum. He placed reliance upon Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash, 1991 ACJ 2 (SC) , New India Assurance Company v. Kamla Ben Sultan Singh Jadav, AIR 1993 Gujarat 171 (FB) and Badri Narain v. Chhotu Ram, 1986 ACJ 1062 (Raj.) and the decision given in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1989, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Dhali and ors. by this Court on August 28, 1991 . 5. Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents also submitted that in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1990, United India Insurance Company v. Mst. Appeal No. 145 of 1989, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Dhali and ors. by this Court on August 28, 1991 . 5. Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents also submitted that in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1990, United India Insurance Company v. Mst. Nathu and others , cross-objection has also been filed for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. He contended that the deceased Bagga Ram was 24 years old and he was employed as a driver on daily wages with the Forest Department on the day of the accident, he left behind his parents, two children and widow and the Tribunal seriously erred in holding that his contribution to his family was to the extent of Rs. 300/- only per month and in applying multiple of 20. He lastly contended that the Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 2,25,000/. He relied Upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben and others, 1993 ACT 673 , Jamali v. Lakha Ram, 1991 ACJ 27 (Raj.) , Prem Kanwar and ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr., 1988 ACJ 65 , Neemabai v. Arun Kumar and ors., 1988 ACJ 526 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dr. O.P. Gupta and others, 1988 ACJ 527 (Raj.) . 6. In its replies to the claim petitions, the appellant Insurance Company has averred that the driver of the offending truck allowed the said deceased and insured persons to board his truck after taking fare of Rs. 6/- from each one of them. This is also well proved from the evidence on record that the driver Pokar Ram had taken Rs. 6/- as fare from each injured and deceased who boarded the truck. Thus the deceased and injured were being carried for hire. According to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court given in Santara Bai v. Prahlad, 1985 ACJ 762 (FB) , the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the injured and legal representatives of the deceased persons. 7. The Tribunal has not passed award in any case against the owner (insured) of the vehicle. It has passed awards against the appellant Insurance Company only. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has categorically held that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. 7. The Tribunal has not passed award in any case against the owner (insured) of the vehicle. It has passed awards against the appellant Insurance Company only. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has categorically held that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. As such his employer, namely, Mohd. Raab owner of the said truck was liable for his negligent act. Thus the Tribunal committed a serious error in not making liable the owner and driver of the offending truck to pay the said amounts of compensation. This error can well be corrected by this Court by invoking the provisions of Order 41 rule 33, C.P.C. even if no cross-objection or appeal has been filed by the claimant-respondents. It has been observed in Kok Singh v, Deokabai, AIR 1976 SC 634 at page 634 at page 636 paras 6 and 7, as follows : "In Giani Ram v. Ramii Lal, (1969) 3 SCR 944 : AIR 1969 SC 1144 the Court said that in 0. 41 r. 33 the expression "which ought to have been passed means "what ought in law to have been passed" and if an appellate court is of the view that any decree which ought in law to have been passed was in fact not passed by the Court below, it may pass or make such further or other decree or order as the justice of the case may require. 7. Therefore, we hold that even if the respondent did not file any appeal from the decree of the trial court, that was no bar to the High Court passing a decree in favour of the respondent for the enforcement of the charge." Reference of Murari Lal v. Gomati Devi, 1986(1) ACJ 316 (Raj.) may also be made here. Similar view has been taken by me while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1989, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Dhali and Ors. on August 28, 1991 . 8. The main point for consideration in these appeals is about the extent of liability of the appellant Insurance Company. Similar view has been taken by me while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1989, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Dhali and Ors. on August 28, 1991 . 8. The main point for consideration in these appeals is about the extent of liability of the appellant Insurance Company. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the deceased and injured persons were travelling as passengers in the offending truck, sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Act is applicable and not clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. Section 95 of the Act, as it stood on the date of the accident (27th November, 1986), ran as under : "95. Section 95 of the Act, as it stood on the date of the accident (27th November, 1986), ran as under : "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability : (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which : (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer and, (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place : Provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect; of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) except 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, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises or, (iii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto 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 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. (4) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4-A) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of person specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of person." 9. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) speaks of goods vehicles only. Clause (b) is in respect of Vehicles in which passengers are carried. Clause (c) deals with other classes of vehicles. Clause (d), dealing with damage to property, starts with "irrespective of the class of the vehicle." It is thus clear that the insurance coverage is on the basis of the classification of the vehicles, namely (1) Goods vehicle, (2) Vehicle in which passengers are carried and (3) Vehicles other than goods vehicles or passenger vehicles. It is not on the basis of the use of the vehicle at the time of accident. Clause (b) had no application because the offending truck was not registered to carry particular number of passengers. It was not registered for carrying passengers for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that when the accident-took place, the offending truck was a vehicle meant for carrying passengers and it was not a goods vehicle. It was not registered for carrying passengers for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that when the accident-took place, the offending truck was a vehicle meant for carrying passengers and it was not a goods vehicle. I find support in this view from Jai Laxmi v. R.G. Insurance Company, AIR 1971 Madras 143 (FB) and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlaben Sultan Singh Jadav, AIR 1993 Gujarat 171 (FB) . Thus the extent of liability of the appellant Insurance Company is as provided in Section 95(2)(a) of the Act. 10. In Motors Owners' Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.K. Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) , their Lordships have interpreted the words "in one accident" appearing in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act and held that if more than one person is injured in the course of the same transaction, each one has met with accident and each is entitled to total compensation limited by the statute from the Insurance Company. Thus the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in each case. Admittedly, in all cases the Tribunal has awarded compensation less than Rs. 1,50,000/- As such the appellant Insurance Company is required to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in these appeals. 11. In Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash, 1991 ACJ 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded interest @ 15% per annum. Thus the rate of interest deserves to be enhanced from 12% per annum to 15% per annum and this Court has power to do so under Order 41 rule 33, C.P.C. 12. As regards the cross-objections filed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 1990, United Insurance Company v. Mst. Nathu and others , it is well proved from, the evidence on record that the deceased Bagga Ram was 24 years of age, he,was serving as a driver on daily wages of Rs. 18/- in the office of the Regional Forest Officer, Balotra and he was holding driving licence Ex. 2 since May, 1984, on the date of the accident. The Tribunal calculated dependency @ Rs. 300/- per month and applied the multiple of 20 and granted compensation of Rs. 72,000/- under this head. It also awarded Rs. 29,000/- under other heads. 18/- in the office of the Regional Forest Officer, Balotra and he was holding driving licence Ex. 2 since May, 1984, on the date of the accident. The Tribunal calculated dependency @ Rs. 300/- per month and applied the multiple of 20 and granted compensation of Rs. 72,000/- under this head. It also awarded Rs. 29,000/- under other heads. Cross-objection has been filed only for the enhancement of the said amount of Rs. 72,000/-. In Jamali v. Lakha Ram, 1991 ACJ 27 , the deceased was 45 years' old and multiple of 25 was applied. In Prem Khanwar and ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr., 1988 ACJ 65 (Raj.) ; deceased was 39 years' old and multiple of 30 was applied. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dr. O.P. Gupta and ors., 1988 ACJ 527 (Raj.) deceased was 52 years old and multiple of 1.8 was applied holding that the average span of life is 70 years. Even taking into consideration the daily wages of Rs. 18/- and ignoring the subsequent confirmation and increase in the emoluments, the dependency would have been at least 550 x ⅔ = 360/- per month. The multiple of 20 is also not reasonable. It should be 30. As such the amount of Rs. 72,000/- deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 360 x 12 x 30 = Rs. 1,29,600. Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,29,000 plus Rs. 29,000/-total Rs. 1,58,600 but the appellant insurance company would be liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. 13. In any case, the Tribunal has not given any direction about investment of the amount of compensation. It has to be given in these appeals. 14. In the result (1) All the aforesaid appeals are dismissed with costs. The owners-respondents (Mohd. Rafiq and Mool Chand and driver-respondent Pokar Ram are also made liable to pay the amounts of compensation and accordingly awards are passed against them also. (2) The rate of interest is enhanced from 12% per annum to 15% per annum. (3) Cross-objection filed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1990, United India Insurance Company v. Mst. Nathu and others is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,01,000/- to Rs. 1,58,600/-. The liability of the appellant Insurance company is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. (3) Cross-objection filed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1990, United India Insurance Company v. Mst. Nathu and others is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,01,000/- to Rs. 1,58,600/-. The liability of the appellant Insurance company is to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. (4) In death cases (MACT cases No. 81, 83 and 86 of 1988 and 12 of 1989) (Appeals No. 34, 38, 39 and 40 of 1990), the entire amount of compensation will be invested in Fixed Deposit Scheme of some nationalised Bank fetching maximum rate of interest for at least 5 years. The Tribunal may pay or allow withdrawal of reasonable amount on the ground of marriage of a girl-claimant or of education of a child claimant. In injury cases (MACT cases No. 75, 77, 79 and 88 of 1988) and (Appeals No. 33, 35, 36 and 37 of 1990) the amounts of compensation will similarly be invested at least for 3 years. The Tribunal may pay or permit withdrawal of reasonable amount for medical treatment of the claimant. The Bank will regularly pay interest accruing on these fixed deposits. The Bank will also take nominations from the claimant-respondents whose amounts are so invested.Appeal Dismissed-Cross objection in CMA No. 39/90 partly allowed. *******