SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 412 of 1990 filed by the claimant Babu Lal and m. A. No. 413 of 1990 filed by Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated 30. 8. 1990 passed by the IVth Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in claim Case No. 24 of 1990 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 2 ) IT was not in dispute that the truck no. 6369 belonged to non-applicant No. 1, m. P. E. B. and was insured with the nonapplicant No. 4, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and non-applicant No. 3 Mahendra was the driver. ( 3 ) THE case of the claimants, mother and father of the deceased Lalit Kumar, was that on 9. 2. 1986 at 3-4 p. m. , Lalit kumar was sitting in the betel shop of paraskumar. At the instance of the driver mahendra, Manoharsingh started the truck and reversed it and in doing so dashed it against the betel shop, as a result of which lalit Kumar sustained injuries and died on the same day. The claimants mother and father filed claim petition (Claim Case no. 24 of 1990) seeking compensation of rs. 3,10,000. The non-applicants resisted the claim. The insurance company pleaded that the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. It also pleaded that its liability was limited to rs. 50,000. The Tribunal after recording evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Manoharsingh who drove it at the instance of Mahendra Singh, driver of this truck. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,000 per month and applying the multiplier of 16 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The insurance company and the claimants have come up in appeal against the award. ( 4 ) MR. Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, submitted that the tribunal committed error in assessing dependency of the family at Rs. 1,000 and in not selecting multiplier of 20. On the other hand, Mr. 2,00,000. The insurance company and the claimants have come up in appeal against the award. ( 4 ) MR. Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, submitted that the tribunal committed error in assessing dependency of the family at Rs. 1,000 and in not selecting multiplier of 20. On the other hand, Mr. Dandwate, the learned counsel for respondents-non-applicants, submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in not taking into consideration the age 9f the mother of the deceased while selecting multiplier. She was aged about 52 years, therefore, the multiplier of 10 should have been applied. ( 5 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both the sides and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of Babu Lal, CW 1, punamchand, CW 2, and Munnalal, CW 4, rightly held that the age of the deceased Lalit kumar was 23 years and he was earning rs. 2,000'per month. The Tribunal was wrong in deducting Rs. 1,000 for personal expenses of the deceased, it ought to have deducted 1/3rd amount, i. e. , Rs. 650 for personal expenses of the deceased and determined dependency at Rs. 1,350 per month and yearly Rs. 16,200. The Tribunal further committed error in selecting multiplier of 16 taking into consideration the age of the deceased only. In selecting multiplier, not only the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration but the age of the dependants is also very material, and the lower multiplier has to be adopted. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das, 1993 ACJ 748 (SC), the supreme Court considered this point and observed:". . . APPROPRIATE method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalisation of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants, whichever multiplier is lower. "the decision of the Supreme Court in adikanda Sethi (Dead) through. L. Rs. v. Palani Swami Saran Transports, 1997 act 939 (SC) and U. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), relied by Mr. Mehta, do not help him as this point was not considered in these cases. "the decision of the Supreme Court in adikanda Sethi (Dead) through. L. Rs. v. Palani Swami Saran Transports, 1997 act 939 (SC) and U. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), relied by Mr. Mehta, do not help him as this point was not considered in these cases. ( 7 ) IN view of above, in selecting the multiplier age of the deceased which was 23 years and that of his mother and father which was 52 years and 57 years has to be taken into consideration. On the basis of the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 comes while on mother's age appropriate multiplier is 11. Under such circumstances, the lower multiplier 11 has to be adopted. When the multiplicand is multiplied by 11, the amount comes to Rs. 1,78,200 (Rs. 2,000-Rs. 650 x 12 x 11 ). The claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,000 each for loss of love and affection, thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,94,200, rounded off to Rs. 1,94,000. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Under these circumstances, we do not think it proper to interfere in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is just and reasonable compensation. ( 8 ) MR. Dandwate further submitted that the liability of the insurance company is limited to only Rs. 50,000 as policy Exh. Dl was 'act policy' and on the date, when this accident took place section 95 of the 1939 Act was in force and it provided for payment of Rs. 1,50,000 to the third parties. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that from the insurance policy Exh. Dl, it is clear that the liability of the insurance com-pany was unlimited. We perused Exh. Dl. In it limits of liability to third parties have been shown as under:"limit of the amount of company's liability under section II-1 (i) in respect of any one accident. Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event Rs. 50,000. Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event Rs. 50,000. "this endorsement makes it clear that the insurer had agreed under section II-1 (i) to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by motor accident, such amount as was necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The liability to pay in respect of damage to property was limited to Rs. 50,000 and it has been mentioned in section II-1 (ii ). The non-mentioning of 'act policy' or the amount in II-l (i) indicates that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. The insurance company also did not file tariff to show the extent of liability. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, hold that the liability of the appellant was unlimited. The period of bank deposit is reduced to 8 years. In the result, the appeals filed by the insurance company and by the claimants fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. .