Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. On 17.10.78 at 10.45 a.m. there was a head-on collision of jeep bearing registration No. BRX 2579 and truck bearing registration No. ASU 4715 on National Highway No. 30 at village Hatia. Both the vehicles were being driven rashly and/or negligently. Two passengers of the jeep, namely, (1) Satendra Kumar Sinha, Assistant Godown Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation, Biharsharif and (2) Amitabh Chandra Jha, Senior Sales Supervisor, Lucky Biscuit Company, Hajiganj, Patna City sustained severe injuries and died instantaneously. 2. An F.I.R. of the aforesaid occurrence was lodged and Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 8 dated 17.10.1978 under Secs. 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. One Bhagirath Sao was the owner of the jeep, whereas the owner of the truck was one Baldeo Singh and Chandradeo Singh was the driver. The jeep was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., whereas the truck was insured with the Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. 4. Claim Case Nos. 59 and 90 of 1979 were filed respectively by Rita Kumari, widow of Satendra Kumar Sinha and his two daughters, namely, Sweta Kumari and Shruti Kumari as well as Meena Jha, the widow of Amitabh Chandra Jha, his mother Shakuntala Jha and two sons, namely, Shitikanth and Anshuman before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 5. In Claim Case No. 59 of 1979 they claimed total sum of Rs. 5,05,400 as compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 522 per month and he was only 32 years old. He died leaving behind his wife and two minor daughters. 6. In Claim Case No. 90 of 1979, according to the claimants, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 1,500 per month and was only 32 years old at the time of death. He died leaving behind his old mother, wife and two minor sons. 7. In Claim Case No. 59 of 1979 the driver of the truck filed written statement. According to him, the truck was standing on the left side of the road on the south flank when all of a sudden the overloaded jeep being driven rashly and negligently at very high speed came from the opposite direction and dashed against the truck, damaged it and fell down in a ditch. However, he did not contest the claim case. 8. However, he did not contest the claim case. 8. In both the claim cases the Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., the insurer of the truck filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the truck No. ASU 4715 was not insured with it at the time of occurrence. No specific detail of insurance was given by the claimants. It was prayed that the company may be exempted from the claim cases. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the jeep filed another written statement challenging the maintainability of the claim cases and, inter alia, stated that the accident took place due to laches on the part of the jeep driver. The victim knowing that jeep was a private vehicle and not a taxi boarded thereon. However, under law the insurance company in case of death of a passenger was liable to pay compensation only up to Rs. 10,000 and any claim beyond the said amount was not the liability of the insurer. 9. The owners of either the truck or the jeep neither appeared nor contested the claim cases nor have filed any appeal against the order and award of the Claims Tribunal. However, by order dated 3.8.85 in Claim Case No. 90 of 1979 the owner of the truck was deleted at the instance of the claimants. 10. The Tribunal found that there was absolutely no evidence to reflect that the truck was moving at high speed, rather as per the evidence on record the jeep was moving at very high speed and collided with the truck coming from the opposite direction. The jeep driver was rashly going at high speed and collided with the truck and the jeep was smashed resulting in the casualty in question. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the jeep driver. The claimants were the legal heirs of the two deceased passengers, who were deprived of the benefit of the earnings of the deceased and as such, were entitled to compensation. 11. So far the quantum of compensation was concerned, the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 59 of 1979 awarded a sum of Rs. 49,000 plus interest 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim case till its realisation, calculating the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 514 per month, i.e., annually Rs. 11. So far the quantum of compensation was concerned, the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 59 of 1979 awarded a sum of Rs. 49,000 plus interest 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim case till its realisation, calculating the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 514 per month, i.e., annually Rs. 6,168 and after deducting 50 per cent towards his personal expenses, it came to Rs. 3,084. The Tribunal used multiplier of 16 and the compensation amount came to Rs. 49,344. In Claim Case No. 90 of 1979 the average monthly income of the deceased was calculated at Rs. 750 which he was drawing at the time of the accident, which came to Rs. 9,000 annually. After deducting 50 per cent thereof towards his personal expenses, it came to Rs. 4,500 and adopting a multiplier of 16 thereon the amount of compensation was calculated at Rs. 72,000. The claimants were accordingly held entitled to Rs. 72,000 plus 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim case up to the date of payment. 12. Mr. Shrawan Kumar, senior counsel for the appellants in M.A. No 164 of 1988 and Mr. Devendra Prasad Sinha, counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 159 of 1988 jointly challenged the impugned award on the following grounds, namely, (i) only /3rd of monthly income of the deceased instead of half should have been deducted on account of personal expenses, (ii) the multiplier of 20 instead of 16 should have been applied for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation and (iii) the insurer was liable to pay the entire amount of the compensation instead of a sum of Rs. 10,000 only as per its claim of limited statutory liability. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the insurance company submitted that in view of the admitted position that a premium at the rate of Rs. 8.50 per passenger only was paid, the insurance policy covered only the statutory liability in terms of the then Sec. 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the liability of the insurance company, which was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000 only was not affected at all. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in law in holding the insurance company liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000 only was not affected at all. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in law in holding the insurance company liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000 only per passenger out of the total amount of compensation fixed. 14. It is true that in the present case no evidence in respect of the details of monthly personal expenses of the two deceased passengers was brought on record. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. V/s. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), while considering this aspect of the matter, wherein there was no evidence in respect of the monthly personal living expenses of the victim on record like the instant case, the Apex Court observed as under: In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and dependants. Taking the ratio of the said Apex Courts decision I hold that in the present case, in absence of any evidence only one-third of the monthly gross income of the deceased persons could have been deducted on account of their personal living expenses. I, therefore, modify the said part of the impugned judgment and award accordingly. 15 Consequently, on making deduction of one-third amount out of the gross annual income of the two deceased passengers towards the personal living expenses, in Claim Case No. 59 of 1979 the amount comes to Rs. 4,112 whereas in Claim Case No. 90 of 1979 it comes to Rs. 6,000. 16. It is true that multiplier method was the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and was accepted to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards all over the country. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn., 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the multiplier method was reiterated as the sound method of assessing compensation. It is settled that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. 17. In the present case, I find that after assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased persons in the manner as enumerated in para 11 above by the Tribunal, the annual dependency so assessed was multiplied by employing the multiplier of 16 years purchase factor. 18. 17. In the present case, I find that after assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased persons in the manner as enumerated in para 11 above by the Tribunal, the annual dependency so assessed was multiplied by employing the multiplier of 16 years purchase factor. 18. The courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic, i.e., to multiply the assessed annual dependency by the use of an appropriate multiplier. In U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. V/s. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the Apex Court has considered the application of multiplier method for determining just compensation in fatal accident cases and reiterated the correct principles and laid down the maximum multiplier to be adopted. It was observed in the said decision that usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. It was held that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. It was the improvement over the earlier position prevalent prior to the said amendment that ordinarily it was not to exceed 16. 19. I, therefore, do not find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an error was committed by the Tribunal in the choice/selection of the multiplier of 16 years purchase factor. Now using the multiplier of 16 to the amount calculated for annual dependency at Rs. 4,112 of the deceased the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 65,792, approx. Rs. 65,500 in Claim Case No. 59 of 1979, whereas in Claim Case No. 90 of 1979 it comes to Rs. 96,000. 20. Admittedly, jeep No. BRX 2579 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing policy No. 456/630157/78. The insurer claimed its limited liability in terms of the said policy. It is not in dispute that as per the policy only at the rate of Rs. 8.50 per passenger was paid to the insurance company. At the relevant time according to the provisions of Sec. 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the said policy was to cover any liability incurred in any one accident in respect of passengers up to the limit of Rs. 10,000 for each individual passenger. 8.50 per passenger was paid to the insurance company. At the relevant time according to the provisions of Sec. 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the said policy was to cover any liability incurred in any one accident in respect of passengers up to the limit of Rs. 10,000 for each individual passenger. The Tribunal accordingly held that the insurer of the jeep, in case of death of each passenger, was liable to the extent of Rs. 10,000 only. 21. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC), the limit of liability of the insurer in respect of third party risk was considered. Sec. 95 formed part of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which dealt with the insurance of motor vehicles against the third party risk. Under Sec. 95, in order to comply with the requirement of the said Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which, inter alia, insured the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2). Under Sec. 95 (1) (b) (ii) the insurance policy must cover the death or bodily injury, if any, of the passenger of public service vehicle, caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle in a public place. In the present case a separate premium of Rs. 8.50 per passenger was paid, which was clearly referable to the statutory liability of Rs. 10,000 per passenger under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at the relevant time. In the present case, there was no special contract between the owner of the jeep and the insurance company to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. (supra) in such a situation held that in the absence of such an express agreement the policy covered only the statutory liability. 22. In my opinion, therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that the insurance company was not liable to contribute any amount in excess of Rs. 10,000 in the total compensation amount. 23. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned award is modified accordingly. The liability of the owner of the jeep bearing registration No. BRX 2579 and the National Insurance Co. 10,000 in the total compensation amount. 23. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned award is modified accordingly. The liability of the owner of the jeep bearing registration No. BRX 2579 and the National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the amount of the award was joint and several. However, it is made clear that the liability of the insurance company limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000 only does not affect in any manner, the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of award. However, there shall be no order as to costs.