JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 29/94, 30/94, 31/94, 32/94, 33/94, 34/94, 38/94, 39/94, 40/94, 41/94, 42/94, 43/94, 44/94, 45/94, 46/94, 47/94, 48/94, 49/94, 50/94, 51/94, 52/94, 53/94 and 522/93 filed by claimants and M.A. Nos. 55/94, 58/94, 56/94, 54/94, 57/94, and 471/93 filed by Insurance Company as common questions of law & facts are involved in them. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.10.86, on the eve of 'Dashhera' festival, some persons were coming from Bijasan to Sendhwa travelling in truck no. M.T.S. 5817, belonging to non-applicant Navratan, driven by non-applicant Bhoorchand and insured with non-applicant no. 3. Due to rash & negligent driving, this truck turned-turtle, as a result of which Nana, Dinesh, Manish, Heeralal & Mangla died and Baburao, Thagubai w/o Navratan, Ratilal, Ramesh, Dinesh Gangabai, Mangia, Sulochana, Thagubai w/o Madho, Shanti Bai, Kailash, Sushila, Shantabai, Ashok, Vatsla, Meera Bai, Bheeka, Shantabai & others sustained injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased and the injured persons filed claim cases under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (For short 'the Act') seeking compensation. The non-applicant owner and driver filed common written statement. They admitted their being owner and driver of the truck. They also admitted that this truck met with accident as a result of which above said five persons died and some occupants sustained injuries. Their defence was that the driver tried to avert accident from a truck coming from opposite direction at high speed and in doing so it overturned. They also averred that the claim applications were barred by limitation. Thereafter they did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The non-applicant no. 3, the Insurance Co. filed almost common written statements in all claim cases and interalia pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash & negligent driving of the truck driver. It was also pleaded that the non-applicant driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and was not in the employment of the owner. They carried passengers in goods vehicle in violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy & permit. Therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. It also took plea of limitation. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving of the truck by the driver. They carried passengers in goods vehicle in violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy & permit. Therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. It also took plea of limitation. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving of the truck by the driver. It held that the Insurance Co. could not prove that non-applicant no. 2 had no valid driving licence. It further held that the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay compensation as truck was a goods vehicle and passengers were not insured. The Tribunal dismissed all the claim cases holding them barred by limitation. Therefore, the claimants filed M.A. Nos. 29/94 to 34/94, 38/94 to 53/94 & 522/93. The claims Tribunal in claim case no. 12/92 passed ex-parte award, therefore, the Insurance co. filed M.A. No. 471/93 for setting-aside the same. It filed M.A. Nos. 54/94, 55/94, 56/94, 57/94 and 58/94 for directing the claimants to return amount of Rs. 15,000/- paid under no fault liability as it had been exonerated from paying compensation. 3. Shri H.G. Shukla, LC for the Insurance co. frankly conceded that the Tribunal committed error in not condoning the delay. We agree with Shri Shukla. The learned Tribunal had ample power under proviso to Section 166 (3) to entertain the claim applications even after the expiry of the period of limitation if it was satisfied that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from making the applications in time. The proviso has to be liberally construed for fulfilling the purpose for which this beneficial enactment was made. The Apex Court in case of The Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. and another, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 923, deprecated the practice of public bodies of taking technical pleas like limitation to defeat honest claims. Even otherwise, claim applications in claim cases out of which M.A. Nos. 29/94, 30/94, 31/94, 32/94, 34/94, 42/94, 44/94, 46/94, 47/94, 48/94, 50/94, 51/94, 52/94, 53/94, and 522/93 arise, there was delay of only one day, the period of six months expired on 11.4.87 and 12.4.87 was Sunday and claim applications were filed on 13.4.87. In M.A. Nos. Even otherwise, claim applications in claim cases out of which M.A. Nos. 29/94, 30/94, 31/94, 32/94, 34/94, 42/94, 44/94, 46/94, 47/94, 48/94, 50/94, 51/94, 52/94, 53/94, and 522/93 arise, there was delay of only one day, the period of six months expired on 11.4.87 and 12.4.87 was Sunday and claim applications were filed on 13.4.87. In M.A. Nos. 38/94, 39/94, 40/94, 41/94, 43/94, 49/94 applications for condonation of delay were not filed, but looking to the facts & circumstances the Tribunal could condone the delay on the oral application of the advocate for advancing the purpose of this benevolent Act. We find sufficient cause in these cases for filing the claim applications after the expiry of limitation. With a view to do substantial justice between the parties, we condone the delay. M.A. No. 471/93 (claim case no. 12/92). 4. Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 471/93 for setting aside the ex-parte award passed against it in claim case no. 12/92. Shri H.G. Shukla, LC submitted that this claim case was pending before Addl. M.A.C.T. Badwani and was transferred to Addl. M.A.C.T. Sendhwa without any notice to the Insurance co., therefore, the Insurance co. could not appear in this case and ex-parte award was passed against it. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award be set-aside and this case be remanded to the Tribunal for decision after giving opportunity to the insurance co. to adduce evidence. Shri Jain, LC, Shri Hardiya LC for the claimants and Shri M.I. Khan, LC for the owner, submitted that as many as 29 claim cases were filed before M.A.C.T. Badwani wherein the appellant Insurance co. was party. After sometime, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was established at Sendhwa and all the claim cases filed about this accident, were transferred from M.A.C.T. Badwani to M.A.C.T. Sendhwa and the appellant Insurance co. appeared in all cases except claim case no. 12/92, therefore, the argument that the Insurance co. had no information of transferring this case to M.A.C.T. Sendhwa, is false. We agree with Shri Jain. When all the cases filed about this accident were transferred to M.A.C.T. Sendhwa and in all cases the Insurance Co. appeared, it cannot be accepted that it did not know about the transfer of this case from Badwani to Sendhwa. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the Insurance company failed to show good cause for non-appearance in this case. When all the cases filed about this accident were transferred to M.A.C.T. Sendhwa and in all cases the Insurance Co. appeared, it cannot be accepted that it did not know about the transfer of this case from Badwani to Sendhwa. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the Insurance company failed to show good cause for non-appearance in this case. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the prayer. Even otherwise, the main contention of the appellant is that it was not liable to pay compensation as terms & conditions of the licence and permit were violated by the insured owner, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation, is going to be considered in this appeal, therefore, the prayer for remand of this case is rejected and it is dismissed. 5. Now we will consider the point whether the Insurance co. was wrongly absolved by the Tribunal from its liability to pay compensation. Shri S.K. Jain, Shri Hardiya, LC for the claimants and Shri M.I. Khan, LC for the owner, submitted that the truck in question was insured by the non-applicant owner with the Insurance co. and the deceased and injured persons were travelling in it, the truck turned-turtle, as a result of which some passengers died and some sustained injuries, therefore, the Insurance co. was liable to pay compensation, Shri Jain put reliance on the following decisions ; 1996 A.C.J. 1178 B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1988 A.C.C. 161 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tara Bewa & Anr. (1998) II A.C.C. 362 (M.P.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Bai & others. 1994 J.L.J. 320 Bhagwan Das & another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anothers. On the other hand, Shri Shukla, LC for the Insurance Co. submitted that the deceased and the injured persons were travelling in the truck which was a goods vehicle therefore. Under Section 95 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the occupants and injuries sustained by the claimants. Shri Shukla put reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mallawwa (Smt.) others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (1999) 1 S.C.C. 403 . 6. We perused the authorities relied by both sides. was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the occupants and injuries sustained by the claimants. Shri Shukla put reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mallawwa (Smt.) others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (1999) 1 S.C.C. 403 . 6. We perused the authorities relied by both sides. The case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra) does not help the claimants as that case was not filed for compensation for the death of the passengers travelling in truck. It was filed before Consumer Forum for compensation for the damage caused to the truck in the accident. According to the terms of the insurance policy the insured was entitled to carry six workmen, but it was carrying some more persons. Under such circumstances, the Apex court held that merely by lifting a person or even three by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle without the knowledge of the owner cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should in all events be denied indemnification. If accident could not be caused by travelling of six persons in the truck, it could not have been caused by travelling of 3 or more persons. Under such circumstances. Insurance co. was held liable to pay compensation. In case of Tara Bewa & another (supra), the Insurance co. did not produce insurance policy to indicate that the terms of the policy did not cover the risk of the deceased helper, the employee of the insured, therefore, this case also does not help the appellants. The case of Sushila Bai (supra) also does not help the claimants. In Bhagwan Das's case (supra), this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandra Vadan, 1987 A.C.J. 411 (S.C.), held that the Insurance co. was liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the passengers who died travelling in the truck holding that the breach of the terms of insurance policy was committed by the driver who lifted the passengers and allowed them to travel in the truck without the permission or knowledge of the owner. We quote the relevant part of Section 95 of the Act below :- 95. We quote the relevant part of Section 95 of the Act below :- 95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability -(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance may be a policy which, - (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under section 108 to transact the business of an insurer, and insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party cause by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;) Provided that a policy shall not C (* * *) be required - (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employees of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment (other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee - (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle; or (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises, or (iii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person, or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of the use of vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place). 7. There were divergent views of the various High Courts in our country about the liability of the Insurance Co. with regard to the passengers carried in goods vehicle. Some High Courts held that the the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle were also liable to be covered under the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance co. was liable to pay compensation; while some High Courts held that the goods vehicle was not a passenger vehicle and the occupants travelling in goods vehicle were not required to be covered under Section 95 of the Act and, therefore, the Insurance co. was not liable to indemnify the insured. The Apex Court in case of Mallawwa (Smt) & others (supra) considered the decisions of various High Courts and its own decisions in case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 S.C.C. 745 and interpreting proviso to section 95 held that only those persons are required to be covered by Insurance policy who travel in a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. The argument of Shri Jain, LC for the claimants that the truck in question was used as a passenger vehicle and generally truck drivers pick up some persons and collect fare and allow them to travel in truck, therefore, truck is also a vehicle, in which passengers are carried for hire or reward, is not acceptable. Their Lordships made it clear that a single use or use on some stray occasions of the vehicle, for carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not make the vehicle, a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. Their Lordships made it clear that a single use or use on some stray occasions of the vehicle, for carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not make the vehicle, a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. For satisfying the requirement of a vehicle, used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, it has to be proved that there was systematic carrying of passengers in the vehicle. In good vehicles, like truck, there is no systematic caring of passengers for hire or reward, therefore, the truck was not a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward and their Lordships of the Supreme Court set at rest the long standing controversy and finally decided that under section 95 Act, the Insurance co. is not required to cover the risk of the passengers traveeling in goods vehicle for reward or otherwise and, therefore, the Insurance co. was not liable to pay compensation for the death or injury caused to the passengers travelling in goods vehicle unless it entered in special contract with the insured/owner and on payment of extra premium covered the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. Some observations of the Apex Court are quoted below : .. .. .. .. .. What is important to be noted is that the legislature after providing generally in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) in wide terms so as to include "any person" and every motor "vehicle" within its sweep, carved out a certain exception by adding a proviso to that clause. By proviso (ii), it restricted the generality of the main provision by confining the requirement to cases 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" .. .. .. .. .. In the first instance, the vehicle had to be vehicle of that class in which passengers were carried. .. .. .. .. In the first instance, the vehicle had to be vehicle of that class in which passengers were carried. If that was not the intention of the legislature, it would not have used the phraseology "the vehicle, is a vehicle in which passengers are carried" and would have simply provided that "except where passengers are carried for hire or reward..." So also the compulsory coverage was not intended for all passengers and therefore, it was provided that "passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Thus, the confinement of the operation of the main provision was in respect of vehicles and also passengers. And that was consistent with the English law on which Section 95 was based. Their Lordships considered the amendment made in Section 96 by Amending Act of 56/69 and observed :- The proviso remained as it was. The object of the legislature in making that amendment was to cover the risk in respect of passengers of public service vehicles. The legislature, therefore, made a special provision in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), leaving the rest of sub-section (1) including the proviso as it was. If this back ground is kept in mind, it becomes apparent that the legislature did not want to make any change in the position of law except to provide specifically for covering risk to passengers of public service vehicles. It was further observed : For the purposes of Section 95, ordinarily a vehicle could have been regarded as a vehicle in which passengers were carried if the vehicle was of that class. Keeping in mind the classification of vehicles by the Act, the requirement of registration with particulars including the class to which it belonged, requirement of obtaining a permit for using the vehicle for different purposes and compulsory coverage of insurance risk, it would not be proper to consider a goods vehicle as a passenger vehicle on the basis of a single use or use on some stray occasions as a vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward. For the purpose of construing a provision like proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b), the correct test to determine whether a passenger was carried for hire or reward, would be whether there has been a systematic carrying of passengers. For the purpose of construing a provision like proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b), the correct test to determine whether a passenger was carried for hire or reward, would be whether there has been a systematic carrying of passengers. Only if the vehicle is so used then that vehicle can be said to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. 8. Now we shall consider whether in the present cases, the Insurance co. was liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the deceased and the injured were travelling in truck no. M.T.S. 5817 which is a goods vehicle and there is no evidence that there was systematic carrying of passengers, therefore, it was not a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward. Therefore, under Section 95 of the Act, the Insurance co. was not liable to cover the risk of the passengers travelling in this truck. 9. Now it is to be seen whether the owner paid extra premium for covering the risk of the passengers travelling in this truck. From the perusal of schedule of premium of the insurance policy it transpires that the owner paid Rs. 240=00 for liability to public risk, Rs. 24=00 for driver and cleaner, Rs. 24=00 for 3 labourers and Rs. 100/- for increased T.P. limits; no extra premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons allowed to travel in the truck. Therefore, the Insurance co. is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the occupants and for injuries sustained by them. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance co. from paying compensation in these cases. M.A. Nos. 54/94, 55/94, 56/94, 57/94, and 58/94 (claim cases no. 10/93, 9/93, 11/93, 8/92 and 7/93). 10. The Insurance co. has filed M. A. Nos. 54/94, 55/94, 56/94, 57/94, and 58/94 praying that it has been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants on fault liability, and in view of interim award, it has deposited Rs. 15,000/- under no fault liability in claim cases no. 10/93, 9/93, 8/92 and 7/93, therefore, the claimants be directed to return this amount. In our opinion, the claimants cannot be directed to return this amount. The non-applicants no. 1 and 2 have been directed to pay fault compensation, therefore, they shall pay this amount to the Insurance co. M.A. Nos. 15,000/- under no fault liability in claim cases no. 10/93, 9/93, 8/92 and 7/93, therefore, the claimants be directed to return this amount. In our opinion, the claimants cannot be directed to return this amount. The non-applicants no. 1 and 2 have been directed to pay fault compensation, therefore, they shall pay this amount to the Insurance co. M.A. Nos. 55/94, 56/94, 57/94, & 58/94, are, therefore, allowed as indicated above. However, M.A. No. 54/94 is dismissed as in claim case no. 10/93 the non-applicant/appellant Insurance co. has been found liable to pay compensation as the deceased Nana was cleaner on this vehicle and covered under the insurance policy. 11. As held earlier, the Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim application as barred by limitation, now we shall take up the appeals of the claimants whether the claimants deserve grant of compensation, if so, the amount. MA Nos. 47/94 & 48/94 (claim cases no. 9/93 & 7/93). 12. The appellant-claimants filed claim cases no. 9/93 and 7/93 seeking compensation of Rs. 71,000/- for the death of their son Heeralal aged about 5 years and Rs. 81,000/- for the death of their daughter Manglabai aged about 15 years. The Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the death of Heeralal and Rs. 30,000/- for the death of Manglabai. 13. Shri Jain, LC for the appellants, submitted that at least Rs. 50,000/- for each death should have been granted as compensation looking to the amendment made in Section 140 of the New Act where the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was raised to Rs. 50,000/- vide amendment Act 54/94 which came into force on 14.11.94. Shri Shukla, LC for the Insurance co. submitted that when this accident took place, Section 92 A was in force according to which Rs. 15,000/- were payable under no fault liability and Section 140 New Act is not retrospective, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to Rs. 50,000/-. 14. Section 92A came to be enacted on the observation made by the Apex Court in case of N.K.V. Brod. (P) Ltd. v. H. Karumal Ammal & others, 1980 A.C.J. 435 and it came into force on 10.12.88 wherein provision for payment of Rs. 15,000/- for the death caused in motor accident, on the basis of no fault liability was made. This amount was raised to Rs. 25,000/- in section 140 of the M.V. Act of 1988. (P) Ltd. v. H. Karumal Ammal & others, 1980 A.C.J. 435 and it came into force on 10.12.88 wherein provision for payment of Rs. 15,000/- for the death caused in motor accident, on the basis of no fault liability was made. This amount was raised to Rs. 25,000/- in section 140 of the M.V. Act of 1988. Again the legislature by amending Act of 54/94 enhanced this amount to Rs. 50,000/-. This provision being social welfare legislation, the enhancement of compensation amount, from time to time, is manifestation of the intention of the Parliament that the loss of human life, shall not be assessed less than Rs. 50,000/-. It is settled that Section 92A (New Section 140) has no retrospective effect but it serves as a legislative guideline for determining the compensation in cases of fatal accidents. This Court in Deoji & others v. Anwar Khan and others, 1989 M.P. 101, held that while deciding claim cases in appeals, the minimum limit fixed by the Parliament should be taken into consideration. This Court in Karuram and others v. Omprakash A.I.R. 1989 M.P. 105, Bhagwan Das & another v. National Insurance co. Ltd. and another, 1994 J.L.J. 320, took the same view and the Devchand & another v. Babulal Faujdar Bus Service and another, 1997 A.C.J. 392, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the death of a child in accident which had occurred on 9.5.85. In view of above, we think it just and reasonable to award Rs. 50,000/- each to the appellants-claimants for the death of their son Heeralal and daughter Manglabai. M.A. No. 522/93 (claim case no. 12/92). 15. The appellant Saraswatibai aged bout 50 years filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries received by her in the accident. It has come in the evidence of Saraswatibai that she sustained fracture of iliac crest, left hip bone and right scapula. She was admitted in Karuna hospital Sendhwa vide Ex. P. 5 from there she was taken to Indore & was admitted in T. Choithram hospital on 13.10. 86 vide discharge certificate Ex. P.7. She also took treatment as indoor patient in Christian hospital, Sendhwa, from 31.10.86 to 22.12.86 vide certificate Ex. P. 8, and in Verma Union hsopital, Indore, from 13.3.87 to 4.9.87 vide certificate Ex. P. 6. In this way, she remained admitted in hospitals atleast for 83 days. 86 vide discharge certificate Ex. P.7. She also took treatment as indoor patient in Christian hospital, Sendhwa, from 31.10.86 to 22.12.86 vide certificate Ex. P. 8, and in Verma Union hsopital, Indore, from 13.3.87 to 4.9.87 vide certificate Ex. P. 6. In this way, she remained admitted in hospitals atleast for 83 days. She was further advised to take treatment for six months more vide Ex. P.6. In this way, the duration of her treatment comes to about 15 months. It is true that the claimant did not produce the receipt of the amount spent in T. Choithram hospital but she remained admitted there for at least 21 days. In our opinion, she must have spent there Rs. 10,000/-. In view of the document filed by the claimant, it can be assumed that she must have spent Rs. 20,000/- over her treatment. The Tribunal assessed only Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the loss of income during her treatment. As stated above, the claimant remained admitted in various hospitals, atleast for a period of there months and she was required to take treatment for 12 months in Union hospital. We can assess value of her service rendered to her family at Rs. 300/- per month. In such situation, the loss of income would come to Rs. 4500/-. She stated that she spent Rs. 10,000/- for special diet. We allow Rs. 5,000/- on this count, Rs. 4500/- for loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- for treatment and Rs. 12,000/- for pain & suffering. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 41,500/-. It rounded up to Rs. 42,000/- which the claimant is entitled to recover from the non-applicants no. 1 & 2. M.A. No. 33/94 (claim case no. 8/92). 16. The appellants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 1,36,000/- for the death of their son Manish aged about 17-18 years, student of class 12th. It has come in the evidence of Ramanand that his son Manish who died in the truck accident was aged about 17-18 years and was studying in 12th class. He has also running cycle-shop and was earning Rs. 1200-1300/- per month. The Tribunal held that the cycle-shop on which the deceased was sitting belonged to the claimant's father Ramanand, therefore, the earning made by him cannot be said to be his own earning and assessed compensation at Rs. 35,000/-. He has also running cycle-shop and was earning Rs. 1200-1300/- per month. The Tribunal held that the cycle-shop on which the deceased was sitting belonged to the claimant's father Ramanand, therefore, the earning made by him cannot be said to be his own earning and assessed compensation at Rs. 35,000/-. In our opinion, this amount is on lower side. The Apex Court in case of Shantibai and others v. Charansingh & others, 1985 (5) S.C.C. 359 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of 18 years old boy belonging to labour class. In view of above, we allow Rs. 1,20,000/- to the claimants. M.A. No. 31/94 (claim case no. 11/93). 17. The appellant-claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 81,000/- for the death of their son Dinesh aged about 15 years. He was student of VIth the class. The tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 30,000/-. As discussed above, looking to the fact that Rs. 50,000/- are payable under no fault liability, we award Rs. 75,000/- to the appellants for the death of their son Dinesh. M.A. No. 29/94 (claim case no, 10/93). 18. The appellant Nirmalabai filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 71,000/- for the death of her husband Nana aged about 25 years who was employed by the owner/non-applicant no. 1 as cleaner on the offending truck. She has stated that her husband was serving on this truck on the salary of Rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 10/- daily allowance. There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. From the evidence it is provided that her husband was earning Rs. 6,000/- per year. If Rs. 2,000/-, 1/3rd of the earning is deducted as living expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellant comes to Rs. 4,000/- per year. It has come in her evidence that the age of her husband was 25 years. Under such circumstances, multiplier of 18 is selected. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to Rs. 72,000/- We also allow Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love & affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 77,000/-. However, she prayed only for Rs. 71,000/-. We, therefore, allow Rs. 71,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband. From the perusal of insurance policy it is clear that the owner/insured paid extra-premium of Rs. 12/- for covering the risk of cleaner. Therefore, Insurance co. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 77,000/-. However, she prayed only for Rs. 71,000/-. We, therefore, allow Rs. 71,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband. From the perusal of insurance policy it is clear that the owner/insured paid extra-premium of Rs. 12/- for covering the risk of cleaner. Therefore, Insurance co. is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 71,000/- (after adjusting the amount already deposited) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and we direct that this amount be paid to the claimant Nirmalabai within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Rs. 50,000/- with accrued interest be kept in fixed deposit for 6 years in nationalised bank in interest paying scheme. M.A. No. 30/94 (claim case no, 22/92). 19. The appellant filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 10,000/-, It has come in the evidence of Baburao that he sustained injuries in his left scapular region and head. Scapula bone was fractured. He was admitted in Sendhwa hospital and therefrom was shifted to M.Y. hospital where he remained admitted for 20 days. His fingers of right hand had become useless and he was not in a position to do the work of carpenter. Now he could not lift heavy weight. He deposed that he spent Rs. 5,000/- on his treatment. It is true that appellant has not produced cash-memos of the medicines purchased by him. However, looking to the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. There is no medical evidence on record to prove that he suffered permanent disability. But looking to the fact, as the Tribunal observed, the fingers of the right palm were separated and were not bending and he was not in a position to lift heavy articles, we award him compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. M.A. No. 32/94 (claim case no. 18/92). 20. The appellant-claimant Thagubai has filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 52,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the truck accident. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. It has come in the evidence of Thagubai that she sustained injuries on her left scapular region and lumber region. The bone of her scapula was fractured. 18/92). 20. The appellant-claimant Thagubai has filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 52,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the truck accident. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. It has come in the evidence of Thagubai that she sustained injuries on her left scapular region and lumber region. The bone of her scapula was fractured. She was admitted in hospital and remained there for one month. She deposed that she spent Rs. 2,000/- in her treatment. From the injury report of Babar (C.W. 2) it is proved that she had one injury on left side of her chest and her clavical bone was fractured. In our opinion, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is just & reasonable and we allowed the same to the claimant. MA No. 34/94 (claim case no. 20/92). 21. The appellant Ratilal filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 93,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He deposed that little finger of his left hand was fractured. Blood was coming from his ear. He was admitted in M.Y. hospital for one month. He spent Rs. 3,000/- for his treatment. He stated that there was no proper union of the bone of his finger and, therefore, he is not in a position to work properly. Though medical report has not been produced, the Tribunal itself noted that the finger of left hand was not properly unified. In view of above, we award Rs. 3,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. M.A. No. 38/94 (claim case no. 29/92). 22. The appellant-claimant Ramesh aged about 12 years claimed compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It has come in his evidence that he sustained injuries in his left albow and right leg. He deposed that he was admitted in Church hospital, Sendhwa where he took treatment for one month as indoor patient. His left hand does not bend from albow and he is not in a position to lift heavy weight. He cannot run due to the injury in his leg. His father Ramu (P.W. 2) supported his statement and further stated that his son Ramesh was also admitted in M.Y. hospital and remained there for one month. He stated that Ramesh limped in walking. His left leg was fractured. He spent Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment. He cannot run due to the injury in his leg. His father Ramu (P.W. 2) supported his statement and further stated that his son Ramesh was also admitted in M.Y. hospital and remained there for one month. He stated that Ramesh limped in walking. His left leg was fractured. He spent Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment. The claimant did not file cash-memos of the medicines purchased by him nor he examined the Dr. who treated him. But looking to the fact that the statements of Ramesh and his father have not been challenged in cross-examination. We grant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant. M.A. No. 39/94 (claim case no, 28/92). 23. The claimant Dinesh, aged about 10 years, studying in Vth class, sought compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It has come in the evidence of Dinesh and his father Baburao that Dinesh suffered 3 fractures in his left leg and blood was coming from both ears. Ramesh was taken to Govt. hospital, Sendhwa and from there to Church hospital and thereafter to M.Y. hospital, Indore where he remained for 15 days as indoor patient. Plaster was applied on his left leg. He limped from left leg. He felt pain in his left hip and in walking. He could not sit cross-legged on ground. Baburao deposed that he spent Rs. 5,000/- over the treatment of his son. It is true that the appellant has not produced cash-memos of the medicines purchased by him. The claimant could not examine the Dr. who treated him. But looking to the fact that the claimant suffered fractures of leg and he limped and spent Rs. 5,000/- on treatment & it has not been challenged in cross-examination, we grant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant. M.A. No. 40/94 (claim case no. 30/92). 24. The appellant Gangabai, aged about 11 years, claimed compensation of Rs. 73,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Gangabai deposed that in the accident her right hand was fractured and she sustained injuries in her eyes, ear and throat. She deposed that she remained in Church hospital for 15 days. Shantabai (C.W. 2), the mother of the appellant, supported her statement. She deposed that plaster was applied on her hand. But there was no proper union. She was not in a position to lift weight and work. She spent Rs. She deposed that she remained in Church hospital for 15 days. Shantabai (C.W. 2), the mother of the appellant, supported her statement. She deposed that plaster was applied on her hand. But there was no proper union. She was not in a position to lift weight and work. She spent Rs. 500/- on her treatment and Rs. 300/- at hospital. This statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. Medical expenditure has not been produced. In view of above, it cannot be said that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is on lower side. We, therefore, grant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. M.A. No. 41/94 (claim case no. 27/92). 25. The appellant Mangla claimed compensation of Rs. 42,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. She deposed that her collar bone was fractured. She also sustained injuries on her neck and mouth. She remained admitted in hospital for 15 days. Plaster was applied for 3 months, but her bone was not united properly. The Tribunal noted that the collar bone of the appellant was somewhat raised. She stated that she spent Rs. 15,000/- on her treatment. She did not file cash-memo of the medicines purchased by her. However, in view of the statement made by Mangla and observation of the Tribunal we grant Rs. 5,000- to the appellant. M.A. No. 42/94 (claim case no. 26/92). 26. In this case, the claimant Sulochana, aged about 12 years, is seeking compensation of Rs. 65,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She deposed that she sustained fracture of her left hand and left leg. Plaster was applied. She was taken to Indore, where she was treated as indoor patient for 3 months. She deposed that Rs. 3,000/- wer spend on her treatment. Dr. Sanjay Babar was examined but he did not state that she sustained any injury. However, looking to the fact that the non-applicants did not challenge the testimony of appellant Sulochana that her left hand and right leg were fractured and plaster was applied thereon., and she spent Rs. 3,000/- on her treatment, we allow Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the claimant. M.A. No. 43/94 (claim case no. 31/92). 27. The appellant Thagubai claimed compensation of Rs. 85,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. 3,000/- on her treatment, we allow Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the claimant. M.A. No. 43/94 (claim case no. 31/92). 27. The appellant Thagubai claimed compensation of Rs. 85,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. She stated that her left hand and three ribs were fractured and she suffered injuries on her head and back also. She took treatment for two months in Indore hospital as indoor patient. She was operated and plate was inserted. Plaster was applied on her ribs. She deposed that her hand did not bend and she was not in a position to work with her hand. She stated that she spent Rs. 40,000/- - 50,000- over her treatment. The claimant did not examine the Dr. who treated her nor she filed cash-memos or discharge card of any hospital. But her statement that she sustained fractures, was not challenged in cross-examination. Under such circumstances we allow Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the appellant-claimant. M.A. No. 44/94 (claim case no. 16/92). 28. The appellant-claimant Shantabai filed claim case for award of compensation of Rs. 16,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. Shantabai deposited that she sustained fracutre of her hand. She took treatment for one month for which she had to spend Rs. 1,000/-. But her statement stands falsified by medical certificate Ex. P.1 according to which she sustained only one contusion over her left arm and she was discharged after giving first aid. Under such circumstances, we allow only Rs. 1,000/- for the injury suffered by her. M.A. No. 45/94 (claim case no. 19/92). 29. The appellant-claimant Kailash filed claim case no. 19/92 for award of compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. He deposed that he sustained injury on his left leg. Dr. Sanjay Babar who examined him found fractured of lower end of tibia and fibula right vide certificate Ex.P. 1. He stated that he was not in a position to run due to this injury. The claimant did not state as to what amount was spent on his treatment nor he filed any cash-memo or voucher of the medicines purchased by him. Even then, looking, to the fact that he sustained fracture of lower end of tibia and fibula right and remained admitted in hospital from 12.10.86 to 31.10.86, we award him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Even then, looking, to the fact that he sustained fracture of lower end of tibia and fibula right and remained admitted in hospital from 12.10.86 to 31.10.86, we award him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. M.A. No, 46/94 (claim case no. 17/92). 30. The claimant Sushila, aged about 22 years, sought compensation of Rs. 83,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. She deposed that she sustained fracture of her left albow. Plaster was applied on it. She remained admitted in Church hospital for about two months and spent Rs. 2,000/- on her treatment. Dr. Sanjay Babar supported her oversion. He found fracutre of shaft radius left. Reduction and immobilisation was done by applying plaster. Her statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. We, therefore, rely her testimony and hold that she spent Rs. 2,000/- on her treatment. As she remained admitted in hospital for two months and she was earning Rs. 100/- per month, she is, therefore, entitled to Rs. 200/- for loss of income. In view of above, we grant her Rs. 7,000/- as compensation. M.A No. 49/94 (claim case no. 32/92). 31. The appellant-claimant Ashok filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 84,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ashok deposed that he sustained fracture of his left leg and injuries on his hip and back. He was admitted in M.Y. hospital, Indore, and remained there as indoor patient for 24 days. His leg was operated and rod was inserted. He deposed that he spent Rs. 15,000/- -16,000/- on his treatment. The claimant did not file cash-memo or voucher of the medicines purchased by him nor he examined any Doctor in support of his case. However, looking to his statement that he suffered fracture of left leg and remained admitted for 24 days and rod was inserted, we grant Rs. 7,000/- as compensation. M.A. No. 50/94 (claim case no. 24/92). 32. The appellant-claimant Vatsala filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 21,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. It has come in the evidence of Thagubai, the mother of the claimant, that her daughter Vatsala sustained injuries in her ear, eye-left leg and other parts of the body. She was taken to Church hospital where she remained admitted for 15 days. She stated that she spent Rs. 1,000/- on her treatment. The medical certificate Ex. It has come in the evidence of Thagubai, the mother of the claimant, that her daughter Vatsala sustained injuries in her ear, eye-left leg and other parts of the body. She was taken to Church hospital where she remained admitted for 15 days. She stated that she spent Rs. 1,000/- on her treatment. The medical certificate Ex. P.1 shows that she had multiple abrasions on her face, forehead and ear on right side. No fracture or bony injury was seen. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 1,000/- and rightly so. We, therefore, award compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant-claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. M.A. No. 51/94 (claim case no. 21/92). 33. The appellant-claimant Meerabai claimed compensation of Rs. 95,000/- for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. She stated that her left thigh was fractured in the accident. She had advance pregnancy and delivery was caused by operation. The child lived for 1 1/2 days and died. Dr. Sanjay Babar proved medical certificate Ex. P.1 according to which she had suffered internal injury in her abdomen as well as in uterus. On 13.10.86 laparotomy was done to save her life and lower segment caesarean section was done. Premature living child of 700 gms. was delivered. The child died on 14.10.86. The claimant stated that she had to take treatment in private Church hospital as indoor patient for 20 days. She deposed that she spent Rs. 5,000/- on her treatment. It is true that she did not produce cash-memos and vouchers of the medicines purchased by her. But, as stated above, medical evidence supported her. In our opinion, looking to the injuries sustained by her and the fact that her new born child died due to the injuries, the appellant-claimant deserves compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and we award the same to her. M.A. No. 52/94 (claim case no. 25/92). 34. The claimant Bheeka aged about 14 years, filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He deposed that in accident his right leg and left ankle were fractured. He also sustained injury on his lumber region and right thigh. His private part was lacerated. He was rushed to M.Y. hospital where he was treated for 20 days as indoor patient. Plaster was applied on his leg for 1 1/2 months. Dr. He deposed that in accident his right leg and left ankle were fractured. He also sustained injury on his lumber region and right thigh. His private part was lacerated. He was rushed to M.Y. hospital where he was treated for 20 days as indoor patient. Plaster was applied on his leg for 1 1/2 months. Dr. Sanjay Babar proved medical certificate Ex. P. 3, according to which the appellant had sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and fracture of 4th metatarsal bone of left foot. He also suffered incised wound 8cm long skin deep on left groin, lacerated wound on left scrotum and contused lacertated wound 6cm long over dorsum of left foot. The claimant stated that Rs. 5,000/-6,000/- were spent on his treatment. Though the claimant did not file cash-memos or vouchers of the medicine's purchased by him for his treatment. But his above version has not been challenged in cross-examination. In our opinion, amount of Rs. 10,000 as also assessed by the Tribunal, appears to be just and reasonable compensation and we award the same to the appellant. M.A. No. 53/94 (claim case no. 23/92). 35. Appellant's husband Gorakhlal had filed claim case no. 23/92 seeking compensation of Rs. 16,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. During the pendency of the claim case, the claimant Gorakhlal died and, therefore, the appellant, his legal representative filed M.A. No. 53/94. It has come in the evidence of Gorakhlal that he sustained injury on his chest and back. He was admitted in Sendhwa hospital. He deposed that he spent Rs. 6,000/- on his treatment. But Dr. Sanjay Babar did not state as to what injuries were suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the injuries of the appellant Gorakhlal have not been proved and under such circumstances, it assessed compensation at Rs. 1,000/-. The claimant did not produce cash-memos or vouchers of the medicines purchased by him nor papers of his treatment were filed. Under such circumstances, we grant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. 36. In the result, M.A. Nos. 47 /94, 48/94, 522/93, 33/94, 31/94, 29/94, 30/94, 32/94, 34/94, 38/94, 39/94, 40/94, 41/94, 42/94, 43/94, 44/94, 45/94, 46/94, 49/94, 50/94, 51/94, 52/94, 53/94 have been allowed by us and we have awarded compensation to the claimants-appellants. Under such circumstances, we grant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. 36. In the result, M.A. Nos. 47 /94, 48/94, 522/93, 33/94, 31/94, 29/94, 30/94, 32/94, 34/94, 38/94, 39/94, 40/94, 41/94, 42/94, 43/94, 44/94, 45/94, 46/94, 49/94, 50/94, 51/94, 52/94, 53/94 have been allowed by us and we have awarded compensation to the claimants-appellants. The amount of compensation awarded in M.A. No. 29/94 shall be paid by non-applicants Insurance co., Navratan- the owner and Bhoorchand the driver of truck no. M.T. 5817 severally & jointly; and amount of compensation awarded in rest of the Misc. Appeals, shall be paid by Navratan and Bhoorchand severally and jointly, with interest at the rate of 12% annum from the date of filing of claim applications (after adjusting the amount already deposited) within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 37. M.A. No. 471/93 and M.A. No. 54/94 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. M.A. Nos. 55/94, 56/94, 57/94 and 58/94 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed and it is directed that the owner and driver of the offending truck no. M.T.S. 5817 shall pay Rs. 15,000/- to the Insurance Company paid by it under no fault liability' to the claimants. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed