BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals M. A. No. 223 of 2001 (Kalkaprasad v. Dilip Kumar Pal) and M. A. No. 224 of 2001 (Neetu Suryawanshi v. Dilip Kumar pal), are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident and common award, though Kumari neetu Suryawanshi has filed separate appeal (M. A. No. 224 of 2001) and the appellants Kalkaprasad and Kantibai have filed M. A. No. 223 of 2001 for enhancement of compensation for personal injuries to them and death of their son, Satish. ( 2 ) ON 22. 7. 1996, at about 9 p. m. , the accident took place when jeep bearing registration No. MP 28-A 157, driven rashly and negligently by Dilip Kumar Pal, driver/owner of the same, fell into a ditch. The occupants of the jeep, Kalkaprasad, kantibai and Neetu suffered personal injuries while Satish died on the spot. The claimants filed claim petitions seeking compensation for personal injuries and death of Satish alleging rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its owner/driver. The owner/driver alleged mechanical failure to be the cause of accident, while the insurance company denied liability for the payment of compensation. ( 3 ) CLAIMS Tribunal held that the accident took place as alleged and resulting in personal injuries to some of them and death of Satish. Accordingly, compensation of rs. 28,000 has been awarded to Kalkaprasad, Rs. 4,000 to Kantibai, Rs. 2,10,000 for injuries to Neetu and Rs. 1,19,400 for the death of Satish. Liability of insurance company has been restricted to Rs. 1,00,000 in case of Neetu and Satish. ( 4 ) THESE appeals are directed against the award and they seek enhancement of compensation. M. A. No. 223 of 2001: ( 5 ) FIRST of all, we come to the case of kalkaprasad and his wife Kantibai. Kalkaprasad suffered fracture of right leg and pain in chest. He was a salesman and earning Rs. 800 per month. He states that he remained in the hospital for six months, operation was conducted and rod was inserted. He became lame. The doctor puts the temporary disability to 25 per cent. Medical bills worth Rs. 2,233 have been filed. The Claims Tribunal has awarded rs. 28,000 against claim of Rs. 1,00,000. 800 per month. He states that he remained in the hospital for six months, operation was conducted and rod was inserted. He became lame. The doctor puts the temporary disability to 25 per cent. Medical bills worth Rs. 2,233 have been filed. The Claims Tribunal has awarded rs. 28,000 against claim of Rs. 1,00,000. It is submitted that the claimant could not collect more medical bills since not only he was injured in the accident, but also his wife and daughter, while his son died. However, looking to the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that he remained in the hospital for six months. He may have obtained the treatment for sometime and left the hospital to attend it as an outdoor patient. Rod has been inserted in his leg after operation and he moves limpingly. He cannot use the leg as before in later life and this handicap is to remain with claimant for the rest of his life. Needless to say that during the treatment and later, he must have undergone pain and suffering for the injuries. With this background, it is desirable to award compensation of Rs. 50,000 to him with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment on enhanced compensation. ( 6 ) KANTIBAI suffered simple injuries/ abrasions in this accident and after some treatment, she became alright. However, she has been awarded compensation of rs. 4,000 against the claim of Rs. 50,000. We think, this award does not call for interference, therefore, it is maintained. M. A. No. 224 of 2001: ( 7 ) NEETU is 21 years old. It is submitted that she was doing some knitting work and earning Rs. 1,500 per month. She suffered grievous injuries in this accident as a result of which she is completely paralysed, lies in bed and attended to by her parents. She left her studies and cannot work. For the rest of her life, she has to remain in paralytic condition. During the treatment, she was operated, but could not be cured. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Neetu is completely paralytic. She is a young girl and will have to remain in this state for the rest of her life. She left her studies and cannot work. For the rest of her life, she has to remain in paralytic condition. During the treatment, she was operated, but could not be cured. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Neetu is completely paralytic. She is a young girl and will have to remain in this state for the rest of her life. So long as her parents are alive, they will attend to her, but after their demise, there has to be someone who will look after her. She has lost her marriage prospects, there are no prospects for her recovery and no prospects for sustaining life. She has been awarded Rs. 2,10,000 by the Claims Tribunal which in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be thoroughly inadequate. She will require medical treatment in future as well. It is a case of 100 per cent disability. ( 8 ) IN Durgesh Kumar Yadav v. Vimal, 2003 0 ACJ 1374 (MP), compensation of rs. 6,14,000 has been awarded for 80 per cent disability under various heads like permanent disability (Rs. 2,55,000), pain and suffering (Rs. 50,000), expenditure on treatment including future expenditure (Rs. 1,50,000), attendant (Rs. 1,00,000), special diet (Rs. 25,000), loss of income and loss of future enjoyment of life including loss of marriage prospects (Rs. 30,000)and transport (Rs. 4,000 ). Case of Neetu seems to be more serious; therefore, lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 is to be awarded to her. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. Amount of compensation awarded shall be invested with some nationalised bank in F. D. R. in her name for a term which secures highest rate of interest. Manager of the bank may pay her such amount of interest on demand monthly or six monthly, as may be demanded by her, so that she is able to sustain her life, otherwise the interest shall also be added to the principal and invested like the principal. ( 9 ) BOTH Kalkaprasad and Kantibai are also claiming enhanced compensation for the death of their son Satish who was 19 years old at the time of accident, studying in B. A. (Part I) and employed with cement factory earning Rs. 800 per month apart from Rs. 20 daily. ( 9 ) BOTH Kalkaprasad and Kantibai are also claiming enhanced compensation for the death of their son Satish who was 19 years old at the time of accident, studying in B. A. (Part I) and employed with cement factory earning Rs. 800 per month apart from Rs. 20 daily. It is submitted that he had every chance of completing his studies and earn more in later life. He was the only son of the claimants. With his death, there would not be any member of the family to look after Neetu and attend to the parents in their old age. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,19,400 on the basis of income of Rs. 800 per month, applying multiplier of 16. The claimants have not furnished satisfactory evidence with regard to his income. With which cement factory he was employed, has not been stated. The employer should have been produced to prove his employment and monthly wages. There is also no evidence from where he was earning Rs. 20 daily. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on this evidence. Consequently, compensation has to be assessed as a non-earning member. As such, deceased would be presumed to be earning Rs. 15,000 per annum. After making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 10,000 and then multiplied by 16 = Rs. 1,60,000 plus rs. 11,500, i. e. , Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate, Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life; total Rs. 1,71,500. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the award in this case is modified and the claimants are awarded rs. 1,71,500 for the death of Satish. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till payment. ( 11 ) LAST question for examination is of liability of the insurance company after holding that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were liable for the accident in question. Mr. N. S. Ruprah contended that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,00,000 in each case of Neetu and Satish where the award exceeds Rs. 1,00,000. With a view to bring home the point, attention is drawn to the statement of Kailashprasad Jaiswal, NAW 1. We are not satisfied with this submission. Mr. N. S. Ruprah contended that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,00,000 in each case of Neetu and Satish where the award exceeds Rs. 1,00,000. With a view to bring home the point, attention is drawn to the statement of Kailashprasad Jaiswal, NAW 1. We are not satisfied with this submission. First of all, Kailashprasad Jaiswal has not stated that in this case, the liability was limited to Rs. 1,00,000 in each case. Moreover, only one sheet of the insurance policy is placed on the record of this case which does not justify the inference. The column of liability for passenger has been left blank. Therefore, it can safely be said that the insurance company has not limited the liability to Rs. 1,00,000 in each case. The decision cited by Mr. N. S. Ruprah, the learned counsel for the insurance company in case of Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P. M. , 2001 0 ACJ 2059 (SC), has no application in this case, because the policy does not expressly limit the liability in this case which the insurance company could do, but has not been done. Mr. Dinesh Kaushal cites national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Behari Lal, 2000 0 ACJ 1428 (SC), in his favour and submits that there is no limit to the liability of the insurance company in this case. Consequently, it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in this case within two months. Costs on parties. Appeals allowed. .