BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals (M. A. No. 333 of 1993, Sandhya dubey v. Shyam Kumar and M. A. No. 373 of 1993, Shyam Kumar v. Sandhya Dubey)are being decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident. M. A. No. 333 of 1993 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and putting the whole liability for payment of compensation on the insurance company, while M. A. No. 373 of 1993 has been preferred by the owner and driver of the vehicle for reduction of award and putting the liability on the insurance company. ( 2 ) MATHURA Prasad Dubey, husband of sandhya Dubey and father of Arundhati, parul and Kaikna was Executive Engineer in Betwa Circle, Irrigation Department, government of M. P. On 18. 5. 1989 at 6 a. m. , he was going for morning walk. Near nutan College, minibus bearing registration No. CIC 673, driven rashly and negligently, hit him. He sustained injuries, fell down, became unconscious and was shifted to hospital but died on 20. 5. 1989. Compensation of Rs. 12,54,872 was claimed. Allegation is that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of bus by kishore Kumar. It was owned by Shyam kumar and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. Claim of non-applicants is that Mathura Prasad Dubey was lying on the road in injured condition, he was taken to the hospital on humanitarian consideration, accident was not caused by the bus, compensation claimed is excessive and liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000. ( 3 ) CLAIMS Tribunal framed five issues on the pleadings of parties. After consideration of evidence, Claims Tribunal held that accident took place as alleged by the claimants, Mathura Prasad Dubey died in this accident on account of the injuries he suffered and claimants are his legal representatives. Compensation of Rs. 2,98,000 is awarded, liability of insurance company limited to Rs. 50,000, rest payable jointly and severally by owner and driver of the vehicle carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. These appeals arise out of this award. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for parties heard. Record perused. Mr. Rajesh Pancholi, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. These appeals arise out of this award. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for parties heard. Record perused. Mr. Rajesh Pancholi, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. The deceased was executive Engineer with chances of promotion and earning of higher salary in future. He was 47 years old at the time of accident. He left behind his wife and three minor daughters. Claims Tribunal committed grave error while calculating the compensation and lower multiplier has been used. Therefore, compensation deserves to be enhanced. Second submission is that the liability for payment of compensation ought to have been that of the insurance company, since the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured. The submission of owner and driver is also that the liability for payment of compensation should have been of the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to taking place of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the minibus by its driver, otherwise, accident would not have taken place and Mathura Prasad Dubey would not have died as a result of injuries sustained by him in this accident. The findings of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter is sustainable and confirmed. ( 6 ) NEXT question for determination is whether claimants have been awarded just compensation by Claims Tribunal in this case. True it is that Mathura Prasad Dubey was Executive Engineer, Betwa Circle, irrigation Department, Government of madhya Pradesh. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 3,838. Making 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenditure, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,558. 67, say rs. 2,559 and annual Rs. 30,708. On the date of accident, Mathura Prasad Dubey was 47 years old, therefore, suitable multiplier in this case should be 13 instead of 12 applied by Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,99,204 plus Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium to sandhya Dubey (wife), Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate (there being no evidence about the actual monthly/yearly accretion to the estate of the deceased), Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses since the deceased died after two days of the accident and the claimants must have incurred expenditure on his treatment and transport. This way, compensation comes to Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate (there being no evidence about the actual monthly/yearly accretion to the estate of the deceased), Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses since the deceased died after two days of the accident and the claimants must have incurred expenditure on his treatment and transport. This way, compensation comes to Rs. 4,28,704 (rupees four lakh twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and four ). ( 7 ) FURTHER question for consideration is the liability for payment of compensation. Mr. Pancholi submits that liability for the payment of entire compensation should be of insurance company with which the vehicle was insured comprehensively. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for insurance company submits that the liability of insurance company on the date of accident was limited to Rs. 50,000. To the contention that the vehicle was comprehensively insured, therefore, the liability of insurance company is unlimited, Mr. Agrawal places reliance on Apex Court decision in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CM. Jaya, 2002 ACJ 271 (SC) and contends that comprehensive insurance of the vehicle would not mean unlimited liability of the insurance company. Of course, parties can enter into contract of unlimited liability but this has not happened in this case. The insured has not paid extra premium for making the insurance company liable for total loss. We find great substance in this submission. From insurance policy placed before us, it cannot be said that the insurance company has entered into unlimited liability contract with the insured. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000 only. Consequently, it is held that the liability of insurance company is Rs. 50,000 and liability for payment of remaining compensation shall be of the owner and the driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, M. A. No. 333 of 1993 is allowed in terms aforesaid, while M. A. No. 373 of 1993 is dismissed. Costs on parties. .