JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Award and decree dated 24.5.1989 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,37,000/- to the claimants and fixed the liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and held that owner and the driver of the truck liable for the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 87,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. Claimant Smt. Kishore Kanwar and others filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,14,000/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, is that on 22.2.1986 Jaswant Singh (the husband of claimant No. 1 Smt. Kishore Kanwar and father of claimants No.2 to 4) was travelling in Jonga Jeep No. RRF 1425 from Palana to Deshnok. At about 10.00 a.m. when this Jonga Jeep covered about six to seven kilometers on the road and was being plied the left side of the road the truck No. RRN 4619 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Mukand Das came from the opposite side. The driver of the Jonga Jeep slowed-down the speed and took it on the extreme left side of the road but the truck hit the Jonga Jeep and dragged it to some distance. On account of this accident, the jonga jeep over turned and the passengers sitting in it received injuries. Jaswant Singh and the Driver of the jonga jeep died at the spot. At the time of his death, Jaswant Singh was working as Hawaldar in the Army and was getting the pay of Rs. 1,025/- and out of this amount he was giving Rs. 900/- per month for the maintenance of the family. It was, also, stated that at the time of retirement his pay would have increased to the extent of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 4,14,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of consortium and love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by the claimants. The owner and the driver of the truck filed reply to the claim petition but thereafter they remained absent and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken against them. 4,14,000/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of consortium and love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by the claimants. The owner and the driver of the truck filed reply to the claim petition but thereafter they remained absent and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken against them. The insurance company contested the claim petition. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 2,37,000/- Rs. 2,16,000/- were awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal for the loss of dependency and Rs. 15,000/- were awarded for the loss of consortium to widow Smt. Kishore Kanwar and Rs. 2,000/- each were awarded to the children for the loss of love and affection of their father. 3. The claimant and the insurance company rest contended with the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal but the owner of the truck has filed the present appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not considered the case of the contributory negligence of the driver of the jonga jeep and wrongly held the driver of the truck only responsible for the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has, also, not given any chance to the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses. The insurance policy was comprehensive insurance policy and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not right in holding the insurance company only liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the jonga jeep, also, contributed to the accident and the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the jonga jeep, also, and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in holding the driver of the truck only responsible for the accident. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not borne-out from the evidence available on record. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not borne-out from the evidence available on record. No such stand was even taken by the appellant in the written statement filed by him. In the written statement even the accident was denied. No question to this effect was put to the eye witnesses AW 5 Kalu Ram and AW 6 Ramu-Ram in their cross-examination. AW 8 Jagmal Ram, the investigating officer, in the cross-examination, has only stated that the jonga jeep was over-loaded and was carrying 14 to 15 passengers including a lady and the driver of the jonga jeep died in the accident. From the evidence of this witness it cannot be said that the driver of the jonga jeep was negligent. The site plan, also, negatives the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. From the evidence produced by the claimant it has, therefore, been established that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Mukund Das that the accident took place which resulted in the death of Jaswant Singh and the driver of the jonga jeep and injuries to other passengers. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is therefore, devoid of any substance. 7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the truck is that no chance was given to the owner of the truck for cross-examining the witnesses. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force. The witnesses were cross-examined in the presence of Shri Manak Gupta-counsel for the appellant-and in his presence the witnesses were examined. If he did not like to put any question to the witnesses in the cross-examination then it cannot be said that no opportunity was given. Proper opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses but he did not avail that opportunity. If the opportunity given to the appellant was not availed by him then he should blame himself for this. The award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be set-aside on this count. 8. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance policy was comprehensive and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company was to indemnify whole of the claim and not to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. The award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be set-aside on this count. 8. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance policy was comprehensive and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company was to indemnify whole of the claim and not to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force as no extra premium for covering unlimited liability was paid by the owner of the truck to the insurance company. 9. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 24 and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- as compensation to the claimants towards loss of dependency. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Anr., 1994 ACJ 1 , the compensation determined by the learned Judge of the Tribunal towards the loss of dependency requires reconsideration. From the evidence available on record the learned Judge of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased Jaswant Singh was getting Rs. 1025/- per month as salary and after deducting P.F. and other necessary deductions he was getting the salary of Rs. 979/- per month. Taking into consideration the future prospects of advancement in the life and career and taking that prospects in terms of money, the income of the deceased, for applying the multiplier, deserves to be doubled. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,958/- per month. Out of this amount of Rs. 1,958/- the deceased must have been spending ⅓ of this income on himself and was paying ⅔ of this income to the family for the maintenance. The annual income of the deceased, therefore, comes to Rs. 15,664/-. The deceased, at the time of his death, was 37 years and the multiplier of 12 can be applied for determining the total dependency of the claimants. If the loss of dependency is determined on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra) then the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,87,968(979x⅔x2x12x12). The claimants are, therefore, entitled for Rs. 1,87,168/- instead of Rs. 2,16000/- as loss of dependency. If the loss of dependency is determined on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra) then the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,87,968(979x⅔x2x12x12). The claimants are, therefore, entitled for Rs. 1,87,168/- instead of Rs. 2,16000/- as loss of dependency. The amount of compensation on this count, is therefore,reduced from Rs. 2,16,000/- to Rs. 1,87,168/-. 10. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that highly excessive amount for the loss consortium and love and affection have been awarded by the laerned Judge of the Tribunal. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance. The award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 2000/- each to the children towards loss of love and affection of their father cannot be said to be, in any way, excessive. This part of the judgment/award therefore, does not require any interference. 11. Rs. 15,000/- have already been paid to the claimants by the insurance company on account of 'no fault liability'. As such, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,93,968/- in all. 12. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant-owner, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,37,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 2,08,968/- Rs. 15,000/- have already been paid to the claimants by the insurance company on account of 'no fault liability and after deducting this amount, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 1,93,968/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation. The liability of the insurance company will, however, be limited to Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- - Rs. 15,000/-) along with interest @ 12% per annum. The owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 58,968/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation.Appeal partly allowed. *******