SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 325 of 1993 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramila) and M. A. No. 326 of 1993 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi) which arise out of the awards dated 29. 4. 1993 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jhabua in Claim Case Nos. 83 and 101 of 1989 respectively. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15. 7. 89 the deceased Vimal Kumar was going on his scooter with Rameshchand as pillion rider. When they reached near village Tikdijogi, non-applicant/respondent gafoor Khan came from opposite direction driving bus No. MEN 1188 belonging to non-applicant No. 2 Kanhaiyalal and insured with appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which Rameshchand and Vimal Kumar died. The L. Rs. of Rameshchand claimed compensation of Rs. 15,02,180 while the L. Rs. of deceased Vimal Kumar sought compensation of Rs. 7,61,000 in the Claim Case Nos. 83 and 101 of 1989 respectively. The appellant and the non-applicants/respondents filed common written statements and resisted the claim and, inter alia, pleaded that the deceased Vimal Kumar had no valid driving licence. He drove his scooter in rash and negligent manner which caused the accident. The insurance company did not take the plea of limited liability in its written statement. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the L. Rs. of the deceased Rameshchand and Rs. 3,75,000 to the L. Rs. of Vimal Kumar and directed the insurance company as well as the driver and owner to pay the same severally and jointly. The insurance company filed these appeals against the award. The claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation amount. ( 3 ) MR. H. G. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000. Learned Tribunal committed error in directing the insurance company to pay the entire amount of compensation. On the other hand, Mr. O. K. Neema, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and it was liable to pay entire amount of compensation. He further prayed for enhancement of compensation amount also. 50,000. Learned Tribunal committed error in directing the insurance company to pay the entire amount of compensation. On the other hand, Mr. O. K. Neema, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and it was liable to pay entire amount of compensation. He further prayed for enhancement of compensation amount also. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and also perused the record. As stated above, from the perusal of written statement filed by the appellant, and respondent driver and owner jointly, it is clear that it did not take the plea of limited liability and, therefore, the appellant cannot raise this point. It will cause prejudice to the respondents/non-applicants/owner and driver. Even otherwise, the liability of insurance company is not limited to Rs. 50,000. It is true that on 15. 7. 1989, when this accident took place, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force. But in view of the proviso to section 147, the provisions of old Act will apply to this case. Section 147 of the new Act is quoted below:"section 147. Requirements of policy and limits of liability. (2) Subject to the proviso to subsection (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely: (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. " ( 5 ) THE plain reading of the proviso to section 147 (2) shows that a policy issued with any limited liability, immediately before the commencement of new Motor Vehicles Act continued to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever was earlier. In this case, the policy was issued on 23. 1. 1989, for the period from 23. 1. 89 to 22. 1. 1990. New Motor Vehicles Act, came into force on 1. 7. In this case, the policy was issued on 23. 1. 1989, for the period from 23. 1. 89 to 22. 1. 1990. New Motor Vehicles Act, came into force on 1. 7. 1989, therefore, this policy continued to be in force on 15. 7. 1989, when this accident took place. The application of the provisions of the old Act does not make the liability of the appellant limited, up to Rs. 50,000. The appellant has not filed the entire policy. It filed photocopy of first page Exh. D-l, only which too is blurred, limits of liability as mentioned therein, is quoted below:"limits of Liability: (1) Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-1 (i) in respect of any one accident. Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (2) Limit of the amount of the company's liability under section II-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Rs. 50,000. " ( 6 ) IT appears from above that the limit of Rs. 50,000 has been prescribed for damage to property and not for injury or death which is covered under section II-1 (i ). Non-mentioning of any amount in section II-1 (i), in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, gives inference that the liability of the appellant with respect to death or bodily injury was unlimited. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to pay the entire amount of compensation. As such both appeals are liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) NOW we will consider the cross-objections filed by the respondents for enhancement of compensation. M. A. No. 326 of 1993 (Claim Case No. 101 of 1989): ( 8 ) IN this case, total compensation of Rs. 3,75,000 has been awarded to the respondents. Mr. O. K. Neema, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in determining the dependency of the appellant Shashi and others at Rs. 2,500 per month and applying multiplier of 12. He submitted that the deceased was serving in bank and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. Accountant Bhupendra Singh Rawal CW 1, Central Bank, proved pay certificate Exh. P-5 which shows that the deceased Vimal Kumar Mehta was receiving salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. 2,500 per month and applying multiplier of 12. He submitted that the deceased was serving in bank and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. Accountant Bhupendra Singh Rawal CW 1, Central Bank, proved pay certificate Exh. P-5 which shows that the deceased Vimal Kumar Mehta was receiving salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. Normally, '/3rd of the earning is deducted for living expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal deducted rs. 1,500 per month from the earning of the deceased without assigning any reason. In our opinion, Rs. 1,000 only could be deducted from the earnings of the deceased. On doing so, the dependency of the L. Rs. of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,000 per month, yearly Rs. 36,000. The age of the deceased was 35 years. In Susamma Thomas's case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), multiplier of 13 was applied where the age of the deceased was 39 years. Here the age of the deceased was 35 years, therefore, we select multiplier of 15. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to Rs. 5,40,000. The appellants who were 5 in number are also entitled to Rs. 3,000 each for loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. On addition of Rs. 17,000 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,57,000 which the claimants-respondents are entitled to. M. A. No. 325 of 1993 (Claim Case No. 83 of 1989): ( 9 ) THE L. Rs. of Rameshchand claimed compensation of Rs. 15,82,180 for his death. The deceased Ramesh was a peon in the bank and his salary was Rs. 1,300 per month. The Tribunal after deducting Rs. 700 determined dependency of the respondent at Rs. 600 per month and applied multiplier of 15. Normally, as stated above, '/3rd amount of monthly income is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. But, here the Tribunal determined the dependency of the respondents after deducting more than Rs. 700 and assigned no reason why so much amount was deducted from the earnings of the deceased. In our opinion, on deducting 1/3srd of the monthly earnings of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 800 per month, yearly Rs. 9,600. The age of the deceased was 29 years. In view of above, we select the multiplier of 16. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount of compensation comes to (Rs. In our opinion, on deducting 1/3srd of the monthly earnings of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 800 per month, yearly Rs. 9,600. The age of the deceased was 29 years. In view of above, we select the multiplier of 16. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount of compensation comes to (Rs. 9,600 x 16) = Rs. 1,53,600. The respondents /applicants are also entitled to Rs. 3,000 each for loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. On addition of Rs. 14,000, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,67,600. ( 10 ) IN the result, M. A. Nos. 325 and 326 of 1993 are dismissed. The cross-objections filed in both Appeal Nos. 325 and 326 of 1993 are allowed as indicated above, the impugned awards stand modified to that extent. The amount of compensation along with accrued interest in both cases be distributed equally amongst the claimants-respondents as directed by the Tribunal. The share of each claimant in enhanced amount with accrued interest, shall be kept in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank for a period of three years in interest paying scheme. No order as to costs. Both appeals M. A. Nos. 325 and 326 of 1993 are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000 in each appeal, if certified. Appeals dismissed; Cross-objections allowed. .