Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, that is, the National Insurance Company Limited. The letters patent appeal is arising out of a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 582 of 1998 : M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Rambali Devi and others. The miscellaneous appeal had been filed after the Ist Addl. District Judge cum-Motor Vehicles Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claims Case no. 8 of 1995/4 of 1996 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,540/- to the deceaseds claimants, that is, his widow and children. 2. In the appeal and in the present letters patent appeal arguments had been addressed very strenuously on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation at all and given an occasion even Rs. 1,61,540/- should not have been awarded by the Tribunal. This argument has been advanced on the proposition that the Insurance Company is entitled to address the court on a no fault liability. Thus, it is suggested to the court that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation as awarded either by the Claims Tribunal or in the miscellaneous appeal heard by a learned Judge of the High Court. The no fault liability arguments regard being had to the circumstances of the case is ridiculous. The accident took place while the deceased was urinating on the side of the road and was hit by a tractors trailer. 3. In matters relating to negligence, the aspect is not that the other man was negligent but the person at whose hands the accident may have taken place had taken into account the other mans negligence also. The person urinating on the side of the road can hardly be negligent to have arranged to be hit by a tractor. The argument of no fault liability offends equity. In any case this was not an argument raised in the miscellaneous appeal and the court cannot take this into account. 4. The other argument addressed is that the accident in so far as is recorded in the First Information Report refers to a vehicle and this may not be a vehicle which may cause the accident. The suggestion being made is that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt whether the accident was caused by the tractor or the tractors trailer. The suggestion being made is that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt whether the accident was caused by the tractor or the tractors trailer. This argument also cannot be accepted by the court as the trailer is as best as an appendage to the tractor and the vehicle was registered and the record shows as BR-06-5691 being the registration for the tractor and BR-06A-5791 as a registration for the trailer. In so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it was fully aware from its record that these were the vehicles on which the insurance had been taken out. 5. The next argument raised was that the policy was limited to the value of the vehicle and the vehicles value stood at Rs. 2,10,000. This in itself is a strange argument as when a contract of insurance is taken out, the risk was covered and the compensation cannot be equated to the value of the vehicle. 6. The other aspect relates to the increase of the compensation from 1,61,540/- to 5,21,280/-. For this the learned judge has given a reason in paragraph 5 of the judgment that in accordance with Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, a wrong multiplier had been used. The error indeed was very apparent and in the circumstances, the compensation as has been fixed by the learned Judge on the miscellaneous appeal is not incorrect. 7. The Court is not inclined to interfere on this letters patent appeal. 8. Dismissed.