SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of M. A. No. 128 of 1997 (Harsahy v. Ajay Kumar), M. A. No. 131 of 1997 (Veenabai v. Ajay Kumar) and M. A. No. 420 of 1997 (Kalabai v. Ajay Kumar)and cross-appeals M. A. Nos. 408, 553 and 410 of 1997 and No. 35 of 1998 filed by insurance company, as they arise out of common award dated 24. 9. 1996 passed by 1st Member, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Mhow, in Claim Case Nos. 157, 156 and 151 of 1987 respectively whereby compensation of Rs. 27,000, Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 40,000 was awarded. ( 2 ) THE facts of the cases, in brief, are that on 23. 11. 1981 barat' party of Dinesh s/o Raghunath was travelling in bus No. MPN 7475 owned by non-applicant No. 1 ajay Kumar, driven by non-applicant No. 2 Dwarka Prasad and insured with nonapplicant No. 3. This bus was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed, as a result of which it turned turtle in Dharughat and went 40-50 feet deep into the valley. Many members of the Barat party including Kallu alias Mahesh, s/o appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant no. 3 in M. A. No. 128 of 1997; Shiv Prasad, the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in M. A. No. 131 of 1997; and Nannu, s/o appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in M. A. No. 420 of 1997; died on the spot and some others got injuries. They filed claim cases seeking compensation of rs. 1,55,000, Rs. 1,55,000 and Rs. 1,60,000 respectively. The non-applicants resisted the claim. The insurance company, inter alia, pleaded that its liability was limited to Rs. 5,000 under section 95 (2) (b) (ii) (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The tribunal awarded Rs. 27,000 for the death of Kallu alias Mahesh, Rs. 80,000 for the death of Shiv Prasad and Rs. 40,000 for the death of Nannu and directed the nonapplicants to pay above amounts to their l. Rs. appellants jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application. The claimants have filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation amount and the insurance company has filed cross-appeals for reduction of the same. ( 3 ) WE heard Mr. appellants jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application. The claimants have filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation amount and the insurance company has filed cross-appeals for reduction of the same. ( 3 ) WE heard Mr. Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Mr. A. H. Khan, learned counsel for the insurance company and considered their arguments and perused the record. ' ( 4 ) THE fact of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the death of Shiv Prasad, Kallu alias Mahesh and nannu in the accident has not been challenged before us and rightly so as this fact has been amply proved from the evidence of Krishna Bihari, CW 4 and other witnesses. Now we come to the question of quantum of compensation. M. A. No. 131 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 156 of 1987) ( 5 ) VEENABAI, CW 2, the widow of the deceased deposed that her husband Shiv prasad was working in Irrigation Department on muster roll, he was paid Rs. 1,000 per month. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Shiv Prasad at rs. 775, deducted Rs. 275 for personal expenses of the deceased, fixed dependency at Rs. 500 per month, yearly Rs. 6,000, applied multiplier of 12 and worked out rs. 72,000 and granted Rs. 8,000 for the mental agony and in all awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000. In our opinion, the tribunal committed error in holding that the monthly income of the deceased was rs. 775. The statement of Veenabai, the widow of the deceased that her husband was paid Rs. 1,000 per month, has not been challenged in cross-examination nor any evidence was led in rebuttal. In view of this, there was no reason for disbelieving her statement. We, relying on her statement hold that the monthly earning of the deceased Shiv Prasad was Rs. 1,000 and deduct Rs. 300 for his personal expenses and fix dependency of the family at Rs. 700 per month, yearly Rs. 8,400. Looking to the age of the deceased which has been held to be 32 years, we select multiplier of 15 in view of U. P. State Road trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 acj 831 (SC ). On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount works out to rs. 1,26,000. We grant Rs. 700 per month, yearly Rs. 8,400. Looking to the age of the deceased which has been held to be 32 years, we select multiplier of 15 in view of U. P. State Road trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 acj 831 (SC ). On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount works out to rs. 1,26,000. We grant Rs. 4,000 to each of the appellants for loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. On addition of this amount, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 1,34,000 (Sic. Rs. 1,44,000 ). In our opinion, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,44,000. M. A. No. 420 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 151 of 1987) ( 6 ) IT has come in the evidence of Kalabai, mother of the deceased Nannu that her son was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs. 30 per day by doing the work of carpentry. The Tribunal held that the deceased Nannu after spending '/3rd of his earning on himself, must be giving Rs. 15 per day to his parents. It further held that he must be getting work only for 20 days in a month and 250 days in a year and multiplying 15 with 250 worked out at rs. 3,750 and in view of the age of the appellants-claimants applied multiplier of 10 and worked out Rs. 37,500 and granted rs. 2,500 for mental agony and in all awarded Rs. 40,000. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the Tribunal committed error in holding that the deceased used to get work only for 20 days in a month without any evidence. The Tribunal was wrong in disbelieving the statement of kalabai, CW 1, that her son Nannu was earning Rs. 30 per day. No suggestion was given to her nor any evidence was led that the deceased used to get work only for 20 days in a month. Thus the Tribunal wrongly imagined that the deceased used to get work only for 20 days. In view of the evidence of Kalabai we hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 30 per day and rs. 900 per month. We deduct '/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased and fix dependency of the appellants at Rs. 600 per month, yearly Rs. 7,200. In view of the evidence of Kalabai we hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 30 per day and rs. 900 per month. We deduct '/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased and fix dependency of the appellants at Rs. 600 per month, yearly Rs. 7,200. The Tribunal selected multiplier of 10 in view of the age of the mother and father which was shown to be 55 and 75 years respectively. On multiplying it with multiplicand, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 72,000. We award Rs. 4,000 to each of the claimants for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. On addition of this amount, the compensation comes to Rs. 82,000. M. A. No. 128 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 157 of 1987) ( 8 ) IT has come in the evidence of mangilal, CW 3, that her son Mahesh alias kallu was aged about 15 years and was studying in 7th class. ' He was good in study and wanted to be a doctor. The tribunal assumed that on becoming major the deceased would have been earning rs. 20 per day and Rs. 600 per month. On deduction of '/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, it fixed dependency at rs. 400 per month and yearly Rs. 4,800. Looking to the age of the claimants which was 66 and 55 years, the Tribunal selected multiplier of 5 and worked compensation of Rs. 24,000 and further granted rs. 3,000 for mental agony and awarded rs. 27,000. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, the amount of rs. 27,000 is too low. The legislature by amending Act 54 of 1994 which came into force on 14. 11. 1994 raised the amount of Rs. 25,000 payable under 'no fault liability' to Rs. 50,000. This indicates the intention of Parliament that human life cannot be valued less than Rs. 50,000. The tribunal passed award on 24. 9. 1996. In our opinion, the Tribunal fell in error in not taking into consideration the amendment made in section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. A Division Bench of this court in case of Dev Chand v. Babulal faujdarbus Service, 1997 ACJ 392 (MP), awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the death of a child aged about 5 years which had taken place before the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A Division Bench of this court in case of Dev Chand v. Babulal faujdarbus Service, 1997 ACJ 392 (MP), awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the death of a child aged about 5 years which had taken place before the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of this and looking to the fall in value of rupee, we award Rs. 50,000 to the appellant parents. M. A. Nos. 408, 410 and 553 of 1997 and 35 of 1998 ( 10 ) NOW the question arises as to whether the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 5,000. ( 11 ) MR. A. H. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant insurance company, contended that the liability of the insurance company under section 95 (2) (b) (ii) (4) was limited to Rs. 5,000 only. He put reliance on M. K. Kunhimohammedv. P. A. Ahmedkutty, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC ). On the other hand, Mr. Patwa, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents, submitted that the liability of the appellant insurance company was unlimited. It did not produce insurance policy nor led secondary evidence to prove that its liability was limited to Rs. 5,000. In this case, additional premium was paid for unlimited liability. He cited New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanak Chand Ben, 1989 ACJ 169 (MP)and Anupama v. Laxmanrao, 1988 ACJ 996 (MP ). It did not produce insurance policy nor led secondary evidence to prove that its liability was limited to Rs. 5,000. In this case, additional premium was paid for unlimited liability. He cited New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanak Chand Ben, 1989 ACJ 169 (MP)and Anupama v. Laxmanrao, 1988 ACJ 996 (MP ). Relevant part of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act is quoted below:"95 (2) Subject to the proviso to subsection (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely (b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, (ii) in respect of passengers, (4) subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor cab, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case;"from the plain reading of above and M. K. Kunhimohammed's case, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC) and several decisions of the Supreme court and High Courts, it is settled that the liability of the insurance company in relation to death or bodily injury caused to a passenger travelling in a bus in accident was limited statutorily to Rs. 5,000. However, the insurer can issue policies covering risks which are not covered by the requirements of section 95. The insurance company on payment of additional premium can enter into special contract and agree to cover unlimited liability with respect to the death of a passenger. The liability was limited or was unlimited, could be ascertained from the terms of the insurance policy involved in the case. Liability depends on premium paid by the insured. [see New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC)]. All the decisions in the authorities cited by the counsel for both sides are based on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy placed on record in those cases, therefore, they do not help. But unfortunately, in these cases, the appellant insurance company did not produce insurance policy. We do not agree with the argument that in absence of insurance policy, we should presume that the liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 5,000. As stated above, the liability depends upon the premium paid by the owner of the vehicle. But unfortunately, in these cases, the appellant insurance company did not produce insurance policy. We do not agree with the argument that in absence of insurance policy, we should presume that the liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 5,000. As stated above, the liability depends upon the premium paid by the owner of the vehicle. It is true that original insurance policy is issued to the owner, but the carbon copy is kept in record by the insurance company. The appellant did not produce this copy which was the best evidence in the case. Their Lordships of the Supreme court in case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413 , held that if a party in possession of best evidence does not produce an adverse inference ought to be drawn against itnotwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on it. It was argued that adverse inference could not be drawn as the office copy (carbon copy) was misplaced and the appellant produced a copy of it as secondary evidence. It is true that the tribunal permitted the appellant to lead secondary evidence and it produced a copy of insurance policy stating that it was copy of the carbon office copy. But this copy does not contain endorsement 'certified copy' or 'true copy' nor does it bear signature of the officer who prepared it. Pannalal, NAW 1, was examined by the appellant for proving it, but he admitted that he did not prepare it nor does it bear his signature nor was it prepared in his presence. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in refusing to take it on record as secondary evidence. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. ( 12 ) IN the result, M. A. Nos. 408, 410 and 553 of 1997 and 35 of 1998, filed by the insurance company are dismissed. M. A. Nos. 128, 131 and 420 of 1997 filed by the claimants succeed in part and the impugned award is modified as indicated above. The non-applicants shall pay the amount of compensation as stated above with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum (after adjusting the amount already deposited) from the date of filing of claim application till realisation within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The non-applicants shall pay the amount of compensation as stated above with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum (after adjusting the amount already deposited) from the date of filing of claim application till realisation within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs. Orders accordingly. .