Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. Both these appeals were heard together as both the appeals crime out of a common judgment passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, in Misc. Judicial Case Nos. 19 and 23 of 1980 whereby the learned Tribunal ordered the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bistupur, Jamshedpur, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 to the appellant Nos. 1 to 6 in Misc. Judicial Case No. 19 of 1980 and further ordered to pay Rs. 20,000.00 to the sole appellant of Misc. Judicial Case No. 23 of 1980. In all, a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 was abounded by the Tribunal to the claimant Nos. 1 to 6. 2. Briefly stating, both the claim case arose out of the same accident. The appellant No. 1 Kamlesh Dhawan was travelling with her husband in a Car and both were going from Dhatkidih to Sakchi and a Mini bus bearing registration No. BHT 793 plying under the name of Rajdhani dashed against the car in which the deceased and his wife were going. As a result of the accident, O.P. Dhawan died and his wife Kamlesh Dhawan was seriously injured. It is said that the wife sustained permanent disability due to fracture of her hand and head injury. It was further claimed that the deceased was working in the Bank and his salary was Rs. 2,958.00 per month and all the appellants were dependent on him. So, a sum of Rs. 4 lakh was claimed as compensation on account of the death of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was claimed by the Opposite party No. 1 Kamlesh Dhawan for injuries, medical expenses and pains suffered by her. 3. The Insurance Company contested the claim but the owner/driver of the Mini Bus did not contest the claim. 4. The learned Tribunal examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants and the Opposite party-Insurance Company also examined its witnesses. On behalf of the Opposite party, the copy of the insurance policy was produced which was marked-X for identification. It was the stand of the Insurance Company from the very beginning that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 only as the vehicle, in question, was insured under the Act policy only in which the liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 . It was the stand of the Insurance Company from the very beginning that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 only as the vehicle, in question, was insured under the Act policy only in which the liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 . 5. Before I deal with the question as to what should be the quantum of compensation which the claimants are entitled to get, I may point out at the very outset that some mistake has been committed by the Tribunal in calculating the monthly salary of the deceased, inasmuch, as the learned Tribunal had observed in the Award that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,642.00 per month as salary besides house rent of Rs. 600.00 but it appears from the certificates of salary granted by the Union Bank of India (Ext. 1) that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 2,138.00 per month besides the house rent allowance and conveyance allowance. It is also not disputed that at the time of the death the age of the deceased was about 41 years. If 1/3rd amount is deducted from the sum of Rs. 2,138.00 , which was the salary of the deceased at the time of his death, the amount will come to Rs. 1,426.00 and, as such his annual income would be Rs. 17,112.00 which he would have contributed towards the maintenance of his family. It is true that after the accident two sons of the deceased got employment. Nevertheless, the wife and other children of the deceased must have depended on the income of the deceased. 6. The learned Tribunal has found that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited up to Rs. 50,000.00 , but in spite of that he gave award of Rs. 50,000.00 only in view of the fact that two sons of the deceased got employment. I have stated above that apart from the employed sons of the deceased, he left behind his widow and three dependent children who also depended on the deceased, who used to maintain them. As such, the widow of the deceased and her three minor children are certainly entitled for adequate compensation. 7. I have stated above that apart from the employed sons of the deceased, he left behind his widow and three dependent children who also depended on the deceased, who used to maintain them. As such, the widow of the deceased and her three minor children are certainly entitled for adequate compensation. 7. So far the question that whether the liability of the Insurance Company was limited or unlimited, the Insurance Company had filed the copy of the policy retained by them which has been marked% for identification. The learned Tribunal did not consider the copy of the policy produced on behalf of the Insurance Company and found that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 which appears to be manifestly wrong. In the case of The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. V/s. The New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. -- , the apex Court has held that the Tribunal should not strictly follow the provisions of the Evidence Act and should be guided more by the principles of natural justice. The Insurance Company has also filed a petition under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. praying therein to mark the copy of the policy as exhibit in the instant case. Keeping inview the decision cited above as also the prayer made on behalf of the insurance Company to mark the copy of the policy as exhibit (marked-X for identification), I am of the view that the learned Tribunal should have considered the copy of the policy (marked-X for identification) in order to come to a conclusion that whether the Insurance Company had limited liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 or had the unlimited liability. A bare perusal of the policy produced on behalf of the Insurance Company (Marked-X for identification) will indicate that the vehicle, in question, was insured up to Rs. 50,000.00 only against the liability to public risk for which the premium was paid. As such, I must say that the Insurance Company had the limited liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 only against the public risk and it has no unlimited liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 8. The next question arises that what should be the quantum of compensation to which the wife of the deceased and her three minor children were entitled. 50,000.00 only against the public risk and it has no unlimited liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 8. The next question arises that what should be the quantum of compensation to which the wife of the deceased and her three minor children were entitled. In this connection, I have stated above that yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 17,112.00 . So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a multiplier of 12 should be applied and if the multiplier of 12 is applied to the yearly income of Rs. 17,112.00 the amount comes to Rs. 2,05,344.00 and if the sum of Rs. 25,344.00 is deducted from this amount on account of one time payment, the amount of compensation payable to the claimant comes to Rs. 1,80,000.00 which appears to be the adequate compensation payable to the claimants, inasmuch, as if this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, it may fetch interest of 10% per annum and the claimant would get Rs. 18,000.00 per annum byway of interest which will be equal to the amount which the deceased would have contributed towards his family. I, therefore, hold that the claimants viz. widow of the deceased and her three minor children are entitled to get Rs. 1,80,000.00 as compensation for the death of the deceased. 9. As I have already stated above that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand), I hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 50,000.00 only out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,80,000.00 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,30,000.00 (one lakh thirty thousand) shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle. 10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000.00 for the injuries sustained by the widow of the deceased and it is submitted that the Insurance Company has already deposited that amount before the Tribunal for payment to the appellant of Misc. Appeal No. 350 of 1991 (R). The compensation amount of Rs. 20,000.00 payable to the appellant Kamlesh Dhawan for her bodily injuries, medical expenses and pains suffered by her fax as held by the Tribunal appears to be quite justified and does not require any enhancement. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs. Appeal No. 350 of 1991 (R). The compensation amount of Rs. 20,000.00 payable to the appellant Kamlesh Dhawan for her bodily injuries, medical expenses and pains suffered by her fax as held by the Tribunal appears to be quite justified and does not require any enhancement. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 has been deposited by the Insurance Company for payment to the appellant, namely, Kamlesh Dhawan, I feel that this Court should not interfere in that regard and the amount so deposited by the Insurance Company may be paid to her. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 349 of 1991 (R) submitted that the Tribunal has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum pendenti lite till the realisation of the entire amount of Rs. 70,000.00 which is inadequate and it was prayed that the interest should be enhanced. I also feel that the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum is inadequate and it should raised from 6% to 9% from the date of application till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the amount of its liability from the date of application till the payment is made to the appellants of the amount is deposited in the Court for making payment to them. 12. In the result, therefore, I hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 50,000.00 only in Misc. Judicial Case No. 19 of 1980 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realisation and the owners of the vehicle, namely, Badruzaman Ansari is liable to pay the sum of Rs. 1,30,000.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation to the appellant No. 1 and her three minor children. 13. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 349 of 1991 (R) is allowed with the modification in the Award, as stated above, and Misc. Appeal No. 350 of 1991 (R) is dismissed.