JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The husband has filed this appeal claiming higher compensation. He had filed Misc. Case No. 233 of 1991 claiming compensation on account of death of his wife in a motor accident. The parents of the deceased had filed Misc. Case No. 686 of 1991. In the claim application filed by the parents it was stated that their daughter was residing with them and was main¬taining them being a daily wage earner. The husband in his claim application had also stated that his wife was contributing her wages to the family. 2. The owner in his written statement denied the averments made in the claim application and took the plea that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. The Insurer filed written statement generally denying the allegations. 3. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. It was further found that the deceased was not staying with her parents and the parents were not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal directed compensation of Rs. 26,000/- to the husband. No appeal was filed by the owner or the Insurance Company. As a matter of fact, it is not disputed that the awarded amount of Rs. 26,000/- along with the accrued interest has already been paid to the husband. An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of the parents claiming that they should have been given compensation. It is not disputed that the father of the deceased has died in the meantime. 4. In such background, the questions which are required to be considered are : (i) Whether the amount of compensation is to be enhanced. (ii) Whether the mother of the deceased would be entitled to any compensation. 5. The Tribunal has already held that the deceased was a housewife and on that basis Rs. 300/- was assessed as the notion¬al income per month and Rs. 2000/- was assessed as the annual contribution and on that basis applying the multiplier of 13, a sum of Rs. 26,000/- has been awarded. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. The husband who was one of the claimants was aged about 28 years and the mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years. 2000/- was assessed as the annual contribution and on that basis applying the multiplier of 13, a sum of Rs. 26,000/- has been awarded. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. The husband who was one of the claimants was aged about 28 years and the mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years. In such view of the matter, the multiplier of 13 appears to be on the lower side. Similarly, there is some evidence relating to the earning of the deceased herself. Even though the accident oc¬curred in the year 1991, by the time of award the Motor Vehicles Act had been amended and the minimum liability towards ‘no fault liability’ has been increased to Rs. 50,000/-. Even though such amendment may not be applicable retrospectively, it has been observed in some decisions of this Court that this amended amount can be considered to be a guideline for the purpose of fixing compensation. Having regard to all these aspects, I think award of a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- would represent just and fair compensation. 6. Though technically the parents whose claim application had not been accepted they should have filed an independent appeal and they being ignorant people, the application for inter¬vention may be considered to be an appeal or Cross Objection for the purpose of payment of compensation. The husband has already been paid a sum of Rs. 26,000/- along with the interest. In view of the fact that the father of the deceased has expired in the meantime, in the interest of justice it is required that the widowed mother should be given some compensation. Out of the enhanced amount a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the husband and sum of Rs. 24,000/- shall be paid to the widowed mother. This direction is being given keeping in view the fact that the evidence on record shows that the daughter was also staying with the parents and contributing to their income. As such, the mother though not a legal representative in the strict sense, can be considered to be a dependent. 7. The enhanced amount of Rs. 34,000/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company by 31st January, 2000. As such, the mother though not a legal representative in the strict sense, can be considered to be a dependent. 7. The enhanced amount of Rs. 34,000/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company by 31st January, 2000. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid by the said date it shall carry interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum thereafter. 8. The counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the question of limit of liability. He has submitted that as per the policy the liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only. The policy which is on record shows that the limit of liability was Rs. 50,000/-. However, in view of the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which came into force with effect from 1.7.1989, after the grace period of four months, no policy could have been issued limiting the liability to Rs. 50,000/-. It may be that the policy in the old format was produced but the Insurer must have covered the statutory liability and the liability being unlimited as per the statutory provisions, it cannot be accepted that the policy with limited liability was issued. Be that as it may, since the statutory liability is unlimited the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to plead that its liability is limited. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.