Honble ARORA, J. – These three appeals are directed against the Award dated 5.7.85, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- to the dependents of deceased Ram Singh; Rs. 1,44,000/- to the dependents of de- ceased Jug Lal and Rs. 35,000/- to claimant Deo Karan-the owner of the tractor - as the amount spent by the owner of the tractor in getting the tractor repaired. As all these three appeals arise out of the same Award and relate to the same incident, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. (2). The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals, are that on 18.91979, at about 4.15 p.m., Ram Singh, alongwith Indra Chand and Jug Lal Beldar, was going on a tractor bearing registration No. HRB 8743, which was driven by PW 7 Navrang. The trolley attached to this tractor was containing Bajra bags. The tractor was proceeding from Jumpha to Melana. When the tractor reached near village Dholiya, the truck bearing No. RJB 1611 came from village Dholiya side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Prithvi Singh. The truck dashed against the tractor and on account of this accident, the hook connecting the tractor with the trolley, came-out and the trolley turned down. The tractor was, also badly damaged. Ram Singh died on the spot while Jugraj, who was sitting on the trolley, was seriously injured and was admitted to the hospital and thereafter he, also, died, Indra Chand also received injuries Ram Singhs father Chandu, mother Smt. Suji, widow Smt. In drawati and minor son Pappu filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Churu, for the award of Rs. 3,76,600/- as the compensation/ damages. Out of this amount, Rs. 3,66,600/- was claimed as the loss of dependency and Rs. 10.000/- were claimed towards the mental agony and harassment. This claim petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 9 of 1980. Jug Rajs father Srawan, his mother, widow and the daughter, also, filed the claim petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 10 of 1980, in which they claimed a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- as damages. 10.000/- were claimed towards the mental agony and harassment. This claim petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 9 of 1980. Jug Rajs father Srawan, his mother, widow and the daughter, also, filed the claim petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 10 of 1980, in which they claimed a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- as damages. Deo Karan-the owner of the tractor, filed the claim petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 11 of 1980, in which he claimed Rs. 50,000/- as the damages. Out of this amount, Rs. 35,000/- were claimed as expenses incurred by him in getting the tractor repaired and Rs. 15,000/- were claimed as the loss suffered by him as the tractor could not be used during the period it remained under repairs. The claim petitions were contested by the insurance company. The claimants, in support of their claim. examined seven witnesses while the non-petitioners did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, by its award dated 5.7.85, awarded the various amounts to the claimants towards compensation/damages, as stated above. It is against this Award dated 5.7.85 that the appellant New India Assurance Company has preferred these three appeals. (3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellans that there was no material available on record to hold the insurance company liable for the indemnity as the accident did not occur on account of any fault of the driver of the truck but it took place on account of the fault of the driver of the tractor Navrang who first gave the side to the truck but later-on came on the main road which resulted in the accident. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of forty which is contrary to the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of: General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Susamma Thomas and others (1). The learned counsel for the claimants, in the other hand, has supported the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (4). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counself for the parties. (5). The learned counsel for the claimants, in the other hand, has supported the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (4). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counself for the parties. (5). From the evidence produced by the claimants, it has been established beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was only on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Prithvi Singh that the accident took place. There are two eye witnesses of this accident, viz, PW 5 Indra Chand and PW 7 Norang. P.W. 7 Norang has has stated that on the relevant day he was carrying the Bajra crop of Indra Chand in the tractor from Jhumpa to Melana. He was driving the tractor while Ram Singh was sitting by his side and Jugraj was sitting on the trolley. Indra Chand, was, also, there in the tractor. When they reached near village Dholiya, the truck came from behind and dashed against the trolley and on account of this collision, the hook connecting the trolley with the tractor came-out and the trolley over-turned and was cracked. The tractor was, also, badly damaged and broke in two pieces. Ram Singh died on the spot and he received injuries on his head and legs. Indra Chand, also received injuries. He, also, received injuries. PW 5 Indra Chand has state that he hired the tractor of Deo Karan for taking his Bajra crop from the Jhumpa to Melana. The Bajra crop, which was filled-in the bags, was put on the trolley. Jugraj alias Jug Lal and Ram Singh were the Paledars. When the tractor reached near village Dholiya, the truck came from behind, which was driven rashly and negl gently by its driver Prithvi Singh. After hitting the tractor, the truck could be stopped after covering some distance. Jugraj, also, received injuries. (6). No evidence has been produced in defence and nothing could be turned-out during the cross-examination of these witnesse which could make their testimony unreliable. The evidence of these two eye witnesses inspires confidence and they have specifically stated that it was only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck that the accident took place. (6). No evidence has been produced in defence and nothing could be turned-out during the cross-examination of these witnesse which could make their testimony unreliable. The evidence of these two eye witnesses inspires confidence and they have specifically stated that it was only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck that the accident took place. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Prithvi Singh and this accident took-away the lives of two persons, viz., Ram Singh and Jug Lal. (7). The next question, which requires consideration, is : what should be appropriate multiplier which should be applied in calculating the damages/compensation payable to the claimants. i.e., the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants? The manner of arriving-at the damages is to ascer- tain the net income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants and to deduct therefrom such part of the income as the deceased was accustomed to spend on himself/themselves. What part of the net income the deceased used to spare for the benefit of the dependants is to be calculated. The normal reduction towards the personal living-expenses is 1/3 of the gross income and the remaining 2/3 is considered as the loss of dependency which the deceased were spending upon the dependents and thereafter to apply the multiplier which may be appropriate to the age of the deceased. The Supreme Court, in Genaral Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. (Supra) held that ``the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multipliction by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is exported to last. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is exported to last. Looking to the age of deceased Ram Singh and Jug Lal, who, at the time of their death were 25 and 28 years old, I am of the opinion that the multiplier of fifteen will be an appropriate multiplier for the assessment of the damages to compensate the dependents. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, in the present matters, has assessed the income of deceased Ram Singh as Rs. 25/- per day out of which, according to the learned Judge of the Tribunal, he must be spending 1/3 of this amount on himself, and, thus, after applying the multiplier of fifteen, the assessment of the damages to compensate the dependency of deceased Ram Singh comes to Rs. 45,000/- The learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of forty, which is wholly against the settled norms by the Supreme Court, in the case cited above the Apex Court applied the multiplier of twelve when the age of the deceased was 39 years. In the case of Jug Lal, the learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the gross in come of deceased Jug Lal as Rs. 20/- per day and deducted half of his income which, according to the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the deceased used to spend on himself for his self-mainternance, and applied the multiplier of forty, which is also, contrary to the settled norms by the Honble Supreme Court. He should have deducted 1/3 of the income of deceased Jug Lal as the amount which the deceased was spending on himself and the multiplier, which can be applied in the case of Jug Lal, who at the time of his death, was 25 years old, should be fifteen and not forty. The amount of award towards damages/ compensation, which can be assessed in the case of deceased Jug Lal, thus, comes to Rs. 36,000/- The amount of damages assessed above shall, also carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till realisation. (8). The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation/damages, deducted some of the amount on account of lump-sum payment to be made to the claimants. 36,000/- The amount of damages assessed above shall, also carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till realisation. (8). The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation/damages, deducted some of the amount on account of lump-sum payment to be made to the claimants. The approach of the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, also wrong in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court given in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Susamma Thomas and others, (supra) and Prerna and another vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2). No deduction can be made on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings. It is not expected that the income of the deceased would remain stable. There were chances of increase in their personal income after the lapse of time by the increase in their business or taking other steps etc. The uncertainty of the future, the allowance of immediate lump-sum payment cannot make a ground for making this deduction. The award given by the learned Judge of the Tribunal after deducting some amount calculated as damages/ compensation, is, therefore, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the deduction made on this count deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (9). The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appe- llants is that as per sub-section (2)(d) of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the damages to any property of the third party is limited only to Rs. 6000/- and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has erred in directing that the claimant will be entitled to get the decree executed against the insurance company upto Rs. 35,000/- in the case of claimant Deo Karan. Sub-section (2)(d) of Sec. 95 of the Act provides that subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of one accident upto the following limits, namely, irrespective of the class of the vehicle, the limit of Rs. 6000/- in all, in respect of the damage to any property of the third party. No insurance policy has been placed on record to show that the insurance company undertook to cover unlimited liability. The statutory liability of the insurance company, under the Act, to indemnify, is only Rs. 6000/- in all, in respect of the damage to any property of the third party. No insurance policy has been placed on record to show that the insurance company undertook to cover unlimited liability. The statutory liability of the insurance company, under the Act, to indemnify, is only Rs. 6000/- Claimant Deo Karan (the owner of the tractor) can, therefore, recover only Rs. 6000/- from the insurance company and the rest amount can be recovered by him from the owner and/or the driver of the truck. (10). In the result, the appeals, filed by the insurance company, are partly allowed. New India Assurance Company vs. Chandu and Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1986 is partly allowed. The award granting dam- ages/compensation is maintained but the amount of compensation/damages is reduced from Rs. 1,51,000/- to Rs. 45,000/-. New India Assurance Company vs. Srawan and Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 50 of 1986 is partly allowed. The award granting damages/compensation to the claimants is maintained but the amount of compensation/damages is reduced from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 36,000/-. The amount of compensation/damages awarded to the claimants in these two cases will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till their realisation and the same will be distributed amongst the claimants in the same proportion in which the learned Judge of the Tribunal distributed the same. New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Deo Karan, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1986 is, also, partly allowed. The award of Rs. 36,000/- passed in favour of claimant Deo Karan by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is maintained. However, the liability of the insurance company is fixed at Rs. 6000/- but claimant Deo Karan (the owner of the tractor) will be entitled to recover the remaining amount of damages/ compensation from the owner and/or driver of the truck. This amount of compensation/damages will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till its realisation. (11). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.