ORDER : Heard the parties, perused the lower court records and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under ORDER :41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. On 3.3.1998 in a motor accident, Awadhesh Bhagat of village Adampur District-Vaishali lost his life. He was 26 years old and was working as daily wager at Hajipur Collectorate and was earning Rs. 16.75 paise per day. He left behind his widow and three minor children. The accident took place when a Matador, bearing registration no. BEM-9882 dashed a truck, bearing registration no. BHF-7675 near village Daulatpur. The deceased was a passenger on the Matador and was travelling from Gothhiya to Hajipur. The widow of the deceased filed Claim Case No. 6 of 1998 for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The Matador was owned by Jaimangal Giri and was insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the relevant time. 4. On the basis of evidence on record both oral and documentary, namely, First Information Report of Hajipur Sadar Police Station Case No. 47 of 1988, Ext. 2, Post Mortem Report, Ext. 5, Charge-sheet, Ext. 3. MVI Report, Ext.6 and deposition of A.Ws. 1 to 4, it was proved beyond doubt that the accident in question occurred on account of negligent and rash driving of the driver of the Matador, in which Awadhesh Bhagat was badly injured and died. A.Ws. 1 to 4 were co-passengers, out at whom A.W.4 was also injured. 5. On the basis of earning of the deceased annual dependency was fixed at Rs. 6000/- (Rs. 500 x 12). However, I find that the Tribunal deducted only 1/6th of it towards personal expense of the deceased and used multiplier of eighteen (Rs. 5000 x 18) which came to Rs. 90000/- Besides this Rs. 5000/- was granted for his Shardh, Rs. 2000/- for funeral, Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. Hence total amount of compensation was calculated at Rs. 1,04,500/- only. 6. It is well settled that in absence of any evidence in respect of monthly personal expense of the deceased 1/3rd of his income was to be deducted and on this basis the annual dependency is calculated at Rs. 4000/-. Further as the accident took place when Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force, the maximum multiplier of sixteen could have been used. 4000/-. Further as the accident took place when Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force, the maximum multiplier of sixteen could have been used. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of the apex court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ). Accordingly on applying sixteen multiplier (4000 x 16), the amount comes to Rs. 64000/-. Adding the aforesaid amount awarded for Shradh, funeral, loss of consortium and estate to the tune of Rs. 14,500/- total amount of compensation payable to the claimant, in my opinion, comes to Rs. 78,500/- + 12% per annum interest from the date of claim application till payment. A sum of Rs. 25000/- already paid to the claimant towards interim compensation is to be deducted therein. 7. The impugned ORDER :and award is, accordingly, modified. 8. So far as the question raised by the Insurance Company that it was liable to indemnify only a sum of Rs. 15000/- out of total amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant is concerned, I find that only the Insurance certificate, Ext. 4 was brought on record, which shows that a sum of Rs. 1740/- was paid towards premium. The insurance policy was not brought on record either by the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company, who contested the claim case. 9. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that actually extra premium of Rs. 12/- per passenger for 16 passengers were paid. Hence under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify only a sum of Rs. 15000/- per passenger. In the present case one of the passenger of the Matador died in the accident. Hence only a sum of Rs. 15000/- was payable by the Insurance Company and rest of the amount is payable by the owner. An application under ORDER :41 Rule 27 C.P.C. annexing the insurance policy has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to admit it as additional evidence. Counsel for the respondents did not have objection to the same to have been admitted in evidence. 10. From this documents it appears that additional sum of Rs. 12/- per passenger for 16 passengers was paid. Counsel for the respondents did not have objection to the same to have been admitted in evidence. 10. From this documents it appears that additional sum of Rs. 12/- per passenger for 16 passengers was paid. It indicates that the liability undertaken by the appellant under clause (5) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act was at the relevant time of Rs. 15000/- only. In the instant case, in such circumstance, the Insurance Company had not undertaken an unlimited liability for payment of compensation in respect of death of a passenger and liability under the policy was the same as the statutory liability contemplated by section 95 (2)(b), namely, Rs. 15000/-. 11. I am therefore of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify a sum of Rs. 15000/- only, out of the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimant and rest of the amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle. 12. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation, direction and modification in the impugned ORDER :.