JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The claimants have filed this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Claimant No. 1 is the father, claimant No. 2 is the widow and claimants 3 to 5 are the minor children of deceased Tankadhar Sahoo. The deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle on 18/19.7.1994 accompanying his goods, that is to say, betel leaves, as he was engaged in business of trading such betel leaves. Due to accident in the night of 19.7.1994, he died an untimely death. Claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2. The owner in his written statement admitted about the accident and the fact that the deceased was going in the vehicle as owner of the goods. It was further pleaded that the Insurance Company should pay the amount, if any, The Insurance Company, on the other hand, denied the allegations made in the claim application and denied its liabili¬ty. 3. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the truck and awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation. Since the deceased was travelling in the truck, the Claims Tribunal has saddled the liability on the owner on the ground that the deceased being a passenger in the vehicle was not covered under the Insurance. The Tribunal referred to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the aforesaid purpose. 4. This award is challenged by the claimants who have claimed higher compensation. It is also contended by them that the liability should be borne by the Insurance Company. The owner-respondent No. 1 has entered appearance. While resisting the claim of the appellants regarding higher compensa¬tion, it was claimed that the liability, if any, should be met by the Insurance Company. The counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that since the deceased was travelling in the truck, the liability is not covered. 5. Coming to the question of quantum, it appears that the award of a sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case is grossly low. It was claimed that the deceased was doing business in betel leaves and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved such a case mainly on the ground that no document had been produced. 72,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case is grossly low. It was claimed that the deceased was doing business in betel leaves and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved such a case mainly on the ground that no document had been produced. The Tribunal has, however, omitted to consider the fact that it is the admitted case that the deceased was travelling in the Truck accompanying his goods, that is to say, the betel leaves. The very fact that the deceased was going in the truck along with betel leaves, clearly indicates that he was a trader in betel leaves. The evidence adduced on the side of the claimants to the effect that the deceased was trading in betel leaves has not been successful¬ly rebutted. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was merely a daily labourer cannot be accepted. Of course, there is no documentary evidence relating to income of the deceased. However, having regard to the facts and circum¬stances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the deceased must have been getting at least Rs. 1,500/- per month if not more. The deceased had to maintain his father, wife and three young children. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be concluded that he must have been spending about one-third of the income on himself and contributing the balance towards the maintenance of his family and as such it can be safely concluded that his monthly contribution was at least Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12. The deceased has been found to be 35 years old at the time of death. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as the age of the widow, minor children and keeping in view the principles circu¬lated by the National Legal Services Authority, applying a multi¬plier of 15 would be apt and proper. Calculated this way, the amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. Besides, the claimants are also entitled to certain amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Considering the above, the award of a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- would represent a just and fair com¬pensation. 6. The next question is regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Considering the above, the award of a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- would represent a just and fair com¬pensation. 6. The next question is regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. There cannot be any doubt that if the provisions of the 1939 Act were to be applied, the liability in respect of the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle accompanying his goods was not required to be covered under the insurance policy. This position is clear in view of the Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court reported in 1994 (I) OLR 1 (FB) (New India Assurance Compa¬ny Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa and others), the ratio of which has been subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in the decision re¬ported in 1999 (1) TAC 202 (SC) (Smt. Mallawa and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others). The Tribunal has, howev¬er, committed an error by relying upon the provisions contained in the 1939 Act as admittedly in this case, the accident occurred on 19.7.1994. As observed by the Supreme Court itself in the above decision, there has been lot of change in the corresponding provision in Section 147 under the new Act (i.e. 1988 Act). The provisions contained in the new Act have been interpreted by this Court in the decision reported in 1996 (I) OLR 217 (The Division¬al Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Division Office v. Jasoda Mohanta and others), wherein after referring to the Full Bench decision 1994(I) OLR 1 (FB), and distinguishing the same, it was held that at least the liability in respect of the owner of goods accompanying his goods in a goods vehicle would be covered. Such decision has been followed by me in Misc. Appeal No. 487/96 (Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dalabehera Chandrama and others), decided on 18th November, 1999. In view of the subsequent decisions of the Orissa High Court, there cannot be any doubt that liability in respect of the owner accompanying his goods in a goods vehicle is also required to be covered by the policy of insurance. In such view of the matter, the liability in the present case is to be borne by the Insuance Company. 7. In such view of the matter, the liability in the present case is to be borne by the Insuance Company. 7. The Claims Tribunal had directed for payment of interest at the rate of ten per cent, but the liability had been fixed on the owner. It is not disputed that the said amount has not been paid by the owner. Now that the Insurance Company has been found liable, it may not be appropriate to grant interest on the entire amount from a retrospective date. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of directing payment of interest for a particular period, I think, interest of justice would be served by directing the Insurance Company to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) towards interest. In other words, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs). This amount should be paid or deposited by 15th February, 2000. If, however, the said amount is not paid by the aforesaid date, the principal amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- shall carry further interest at the rate of twleve per cent thereafter. Out of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid by way of account payee cheque to appellant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be kept in his name in a fixed deposit for a period of three years with provision for payment of quarterly interest. Out of the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid by way of account payee cheque to appellant No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- shall be kept in her name in a fixed deposit for a period of five years with permission to withdraw quarterly interest. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- each shall be kept in cumulative fixed deposit in the name of appellants 1, 4 and 5 respectively for a period of seven years. 8. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Direction given, Appeal allowed