JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.10.1987 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of respondent-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondent No. 10, the Insurance Company. The appellant owner of the vehicle involved in accident, has challenged the award by this appeal. The claimants filed the cross- objection seeking enhancement. 2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal and cross objection are that a claim petition was filed claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- for the death of Manzoor Ahmed who died due to the accident caused by truck No. RJE-5201 owned by the appellant. The case as set up by the claimants is that on 19.8.1979, respondent No. 9 Om Prakash and deceased Manzoor Ahmed were proceeding on a motorcycle No. RRQ-7501 from Bhilwara to Meja Bandh. The said motor cycle was driven by Om Prakash and the deceased Manzoor Ahmed was the pillion rider. In the area of village Kotdi, the motor cyclist overtook truck No. RJE-5201. Thereafter the said truck hit motorcycle from behind and Manzoor Ahmed was dragged with the said truck and succumbed to injuries. He was a young man of 28 years of age and used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month as he was Lathe Machine Operator. The said truck was owned by the appellant and was insured with respondent No. 10 and the claimants wife and children and the parents of the deceased laid the claim for compensation. It was averred that the claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The appellant and contesting respondent before the Tribunal filed their respective statements. The Tribunal framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties. Claimants produced PW.1 Mst. Khatun, PW.2 Noor Ahamed, PW.3 Kanhaiya Lal and the respondent examined NAW.1 Bhanwar Lal, the driver of the trick, DW.2 Rajendra Kumar, the appellant. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Bhanwar Lal. While deciding the issue of quantum, the Tribunal assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Bhanwar Lal. While deciding the issue of quantum, the Tribunal assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal also held liable respondent No. 10, the Insurance Company as the said truck was insured with respondent No. 10. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment impugned and the record of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver, respondent Om Prakash. He further contended that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the driver and owner of the truck responsible for the said accident. It was further contended that the Tribunal fell in error in determining the liability of the Insurance Company as on the relevant date of the accident, the said truck was validly insured with respondent No. 10, Insurance Company. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospects of remarriage of wife of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants, contended that the Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that the said accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and, therefore, sought enhancement of the award. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly admits that the said truck was insured with respondent No. 10. The Tribunal has also reached to this conclusion that on the relevant date of the accident, the said truck was insured with respondent No. 10. Respondent Insurance Company neither placed on record the insurance policy nor its carbon copy and any other material relating to the insurance. The Insurance Company has also not pleaded any limits of liability. Not only this, the respondent Insurance Company did not even choose to lead any evidence. Respondent Insurance Company neither placed on record the insurance policy nor its carbon copy and any other material relating to the insurance. The Insurance Company has also not pleaded any limits of liability. Not only this, the respondent Insurance Company did not even choose to lead any evidence. The Tribunal also held that though the said truck is insured with respondent No. 10 but since the Insurance Company has not filed the policy of insurance, therefore, the Tribunal could not decide the limits of liability and left it open to be decided at the stage of execution of the award. The Insurance Company has not even cared to place on record the policy before this Court and as such, the material available on record is that the said truck was insured with respondent No. 10. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is the Insurance Company who is in possession of the entire record relating to the insurance of the vehicle and it failed to produce the insurance policy and other material documents relating to the said vehicle. Thus, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the Insurance Company that liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. He further contended that the deceased was between 32 to 35 years of age and used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month at the relevant time of the accident which is established by PW.1 Mst. Khatun and PW.2 Noor Mohammed Testimony of these witnesses remained uncontroverted inasmuch as the respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. 8. Post mortem report is on record, wherein the age of deceased Manzoor Ahmed is shown to be 32 years. The Tribunal fell in error in determining the age of the deceased to be 45 years. The finding with regard to the age of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal, appears to be contrary to the evidence on record and deserves to be modified. From the statement of PW.2 Noor Mohammed, father of the deceased and the post mortem report, it is established that the age of the deceased at the relevant time of the accident was 30 years to 35 years. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects while computing the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects while computing the compensation. Lastly, learned counsel for the claimants contended that as against the established fact that the deceased used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in determining the dependency of claimants at Rs. 500/- per month. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal was also on lower side. 10. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. 11. PW.3 Kanhaiyalal is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He stated that the motorcycle was driven by Om Prakash and the deceased was pillion rider. When they were 2-3 kms. away from Meja Bandh, at that time, a truck came from behind and it hit the motorcycle. Due to this accident, the rider of the motorcycle Om Prakash was thrown away but Manzoor Ahmed was run over by the said truck. He stated that Manzoor Ahmed was pillion rider on the motorcycle and he was dragged after the accident by the said truck for about 8-10 yards and thereafter, he was crushed under the wheel of the said truck. He further stated that the said accident was due to the default of the truck driver. In rebuttal, NAW.1 Bhanwar Lal driver of the said truck was examined, who stated that his truck was overtaken by the motorcyclist but thereafter, the motorcyclist stopped the motorcycle and because of this, the motorcycle was hit by the bumper of the said truck. This witness stated that on that day, his truck's brakes were not in good condition and when he was driving the truck from Bhilwara Kotdi, he noticed that the trick's brakes are weak and despite applying the brakes, the truck could not be stopped on the spot. Thus, from the statement of DW. 1 Rajendra Kumar, it is clear that Om Prakash was driving the truck having a poor brake system. Rajendra Kumar also made a statement that the motorcyclists were on the centre of the road and suddenly they stopped the motorcycle before the truck, thereafter they applied brake and the said motorcycle was hit by the truck. 12. 1 Rajendra Kumar, it is clear that Om Prakash was driving the truck having a poor brake system. Rajendra Kumar also made a statement that the motorcyclists were on the centre of the road and suddenly they stopped the motorcycle before the truck, thereafter they applied brake and the said motorcycle was hit by the truck. 12. The Tribunal relying on the statement of independent witness PW.3 Kanhaiya Lal, reached to the conclusion that the said accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Bhanwar Lal and the said truck was owned by the appellant and was insured with respondent No. 10. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the finding of negligence of the truck driver is hereby affirmed. 13. The next question is what should be proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The claimants have pleaded in the claim petition the income and occupation of the deceased. PW1 Mst. Khatun also stated that her husband was about 32-35 years of age at the time of the accident and he was a Lathe Machine Operator. She further stated that all the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased and after deducting expenses on house-hold from the income of the deceased, at least Rs. 800-900/- per month used to be saved. The lathe machine was owned by the deceased himself. She specifically stated that Rs. 600-700/- used to be incurred for the house hold affairs and Rs. 800-900/- per month used to be saved from the income of the deceased. She further stated that her husband purchased a plot 11 years before and thereafter, he got the house constructed by incurring Rs. 35,000/-. She was cross-examined at length but with regard to monthly income of the deceased, her statement remained intact. PW2 Noor Mohammed, father of the deceased also made a similar statement and stated that at the time of death of his son Manzoor Ahmed, he was 30 years of age and he was lathe machine operator and used to earn Rs. 2000/- p.m. Out of this amount, he used to spend out Rs. 1000- 1200/- p.m. on the family members and used to save Rs. 500-700/- per month. 2000/- p.m. Out of this amount, he used to spend out Rs. 1000- 1200/- p.m. on the family members and used to save Rs. 500-700/- per month. He also stated that during his life time, the son purchased a plot and thereafter, the got the house constructed by incurring expenses of Rs. 30,000-40,000/-. The evidence of this witness remained uncontroverted. Respondents did not lead any evidence so far as income and age of the deceased is concerned. 14. It is settled law that in appeal the quantum of compensation is interfered with if it is too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the young man of about 32-35 years of age is too low. It is also settled law that while computing the compensation, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. 15. In General Manger, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, ACJ 1994(1) SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand." 16. Keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased, his monthly income can safely be determined as Rs. 1500/-, out of which ⅓rd can be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased himself. Thus monthly contribution and dependency comes to Rs. 1000/- as such annual dependency is 1000x12=12000/-. This amount further needs to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. In my considered opinion, the multiplier of 17 is appropriate in the present case. Thus, the amount under the head of "loss of income" comes to Rs. 12000 x 17 = 204000/-, to which a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is added for loss of company, consortium, love and affection etc., and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,21,000/- rounded to Rs. 2,20,000/-. So far as liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Insurance Company has any limited liability and, therefore, I hold the Insurance Company liable for the entire amount of compensation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant Rajendra Kumar. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant Rajendra Kumar. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Cross objection filed by the claimants is allowed to the extent that the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******