Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 5.8.1996 passed by the then District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 8 of 1982 awarding compensation of Rs. 96, 000.00 in favour of the claimants-respondents including the interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. The award has been made against the owner of the vehicle with stipulation that the liability of the Insurance Company i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited shall be to the extent of the liability covered under the Insurance Policy. 2. The deceased Sita Ram Tiwary was a passenger of the Trekker bearing registration No. BHU 9282 on 6.10.1981 and when he was proceeding to Chas at about 10.30 A.N., the said Trekker reached near Aerodrome, another Trekker bearing registration No. BHW 1404 came in at high Speed from the opposite direction and dashed Trekker No. BHU 9282 causing serious injury to the deceased. Trekker No. 1404 belonged to the appellant Radhey Shyam Prasad and was driven at the relevant time by Manindra Bhushan Ambastha. In serious injured condition, the deceased was removed to Bokaro General Hospital where he succumed to the injuries. The police registered a case being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 597 of 1991 under Sec. 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was the only son of the claimant who was running a grocery shop at the relevant time and also running a private School in the Mohalla and has been earning a decent amount per month and a daim of Rs. 3, 00, 000.00 (Rupees three lacs) has been claimed. 3. The appellant contested the claim on the ground has trekker No. 1404 never collided with trekker No. 9282 as alleged and he has no knowledge whether the deceased was travelling at the relevant time with the trekker in question. It has further been alleged that the deceased may be sitting on the right side of the driver of the trekker and he suffered injury resulting his death. According to him, his trekker bearing No. BHW 1404 was/not in high speed as alleged rather the other trekker BHU 9282 was in fault and the claim should be made against the owner and driver of the trekker. The New India Assurance Company Limited was impleaded as party in the claim petition being the insurer of trekker No. BHW 1404. According to him, his trekker bearing No. BHW 1404 was/not in high speed as alleged rather the other trekker BHU 9282 was in fault and the claim should be made against the owner and driver of the trekker. The New India Assurance Company Limited was impleaded as party in the claim petition being the insurer of trekker No. BHW 1404. It had also contested the claim by filing written statement and stated that the Insurance Company is not liable for paying any compensation. 4. For and on behalf of the claimants, witnesses have been examined in the case. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses of the faction for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. trekker No. BHW 1404. The learned claims tribunal scrutinised the evidence adduced in the case from, the side of the claimants and also adduced the evidence of D.W. 1 who, had simply denied that his driver was not responsible for causing the accident. In course of trial/enquiry, the factum of accident was not denied. The learned tribunal had after scrutinising the evidence and also on the principle of res-ipsa-loquitor held that the way the accident occurred clearly revealed that the trekker bearing No. BHW 1404 was the offending vehicle as it was being driven rashly and negligently. 5. Mr. S.N.Das, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-owner straneously argued that the learned claims tribunal committed error in not considering the fact that the accident occurred on the road and there being head on collusion between the two vehicles of the same type and as such there must be a contributory negligence of both the vehicles. He attempted to impress upon this Court that the evidence adduced if scrutinised by following the principles of res-ipsa-loquitor would reveal or infer that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles and when the other vehicle or its owner had not been made parties and then even if the compensation as assessed is correct then also, the same should be divided half and half and only the half amount can be levied on the appellant which should again be Indemnified by the Insurance Company as the vehicle was comprehensively ensured at the relevant time. 6. 6. On independent scrutiny of the evidence on record I find that the evidence adduced from the side of the claimants remains unimpeached when there was only a denial from the side of the appellant regarding the factum of accident as well. 7. Mr. Das, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant submits that in the criminal case also, information lodged was against the trekker and the driver of the trekker in which the deceased was travelling. The first information report was not a substantive piece of evidence which only infers about the factum of accident but the contents of it may be brought in evidence for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction alone. The contents of the first information report as a whole is not to act as a substantive piece of evidence, hence, the submission of Mr. Das has got no force. 8. The compensation awarded is on the face of it first determining income of the deceased at Rs. 1, 000.00 per month and getting the half of it deducted for his own personal expenses and the remaining half as the dependency of the claimants and hence the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 6, 000.00 and by using the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation has been determined. The deceased died in young age and there was scope of his future prospect also, but those have not been considered while determining dependency. The learned claims tribunal while calculating the dependency committed error when deducting the personal expenses. Generally only one third of the income is deducted in that score. Considering the whole case, I feel that it is a fit case where this Court should interfere in the quantum of compensation when the learned court below on one hand deducted half of income towards personal expenses while on the other hand, did not fix up dependency on consideration of loss of consortium, although in the multiplier method, determination of dependency is fixed inclusive of loss of consortium etc. 9. On consideration of the whole of the case, I feel that it is a fit case where the compensation should have been fixed at Rs. 1, 15, 000.00 . The Insurance Company is definitely liable to indemnify the owner when there is a specific case of the appellant-owner that the trekker was comprehensively insured at the relevant time. 9. On consideration of the whole of the case, I feel that it is a fit case where the compensation should have been fixed at Rs. 1, 15, 000.00 . The Insurance Company is definitely liable to indemnify the owner when there is a specific case of the appellant-owner that the trekker was comprehensively insured at the relevant time. There might have been the plea of limited liability as is usually taken in the written statement by the Insurance Company but such vague statement does not take away the burden of the Insurance Company to prove that its liability was not comprehensive but a limited one as per law and that no extra premium had been paid but the Insurance Company did not discharge their Burden and in that view of the matter, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi V/s. jugal Kishore -- , would be attracted. 10. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is allowed in part by modifying/enhancing the quantum of compensation as mentioned above. The interest portion is kept as it is. It is further made clear that if any interim compensation had been paid, then the same may be deducted from the quantum of award and also should be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of interest from the date of deposit of such interim compensation.