JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C J.—Two grounds have been urged by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the award of the Tribunal. Firstly, according to him Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 operated as a clear bar to the maintainability of the Claim Petition because the accident occurred in a place which is not a "public place" as defined in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in terms of Section 147 of the Act the appellant Insurance Company was required to issue an Insurance Policy which was operative only it the vehicle was driven in a public place. The second ground of attack is that even though claimant may have been entitled to a higher amount of compensation since he had elected the forum of Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, rather than approaching the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the Insurance Company was liable only to pay amount awardable under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. On both the counts, the appellant must fail in this appeal, and for the following reasons. 2. The mishap occurred in the godown of Tata Company at Mithapur (Gujarat). The allegation was that while the bales were being unloaded, one bale hit the claimant in his neck resulting in injuries to him. Whether the godown of Tata Company was, or was not a public place was a pure question of fact. In the written statement filed by the appellant in answer to the claim petition, it has not at all been pleaded or averred that the site of the mishap was not a public place. Apart from that, in the written statement the appellant has not even averred that the contract of Insurance between the appellant and the owner of the vehicle excluded the appellants liability to indemnify if the vehicle was used in a place which was not a public place. Because these averments were not there in the written statement, the Tribunal did not frame any issue for adjudication on these points, viz., firstly did the Insurance Policy exclude the liability of the Insurance Company in case the vehicle was plied in a place which was not a public place and secondly whether the godown of Tata Company was not a public place. That being the position, therefore, it is not open to the appellant Insurance Company to take up this ground of attack against the award in the present appeal. 3. Mr. Sharma while drawing my attention to Section 147 of the Act has submitted that it was a requirement of the policy of insurance to insure a person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of motor vehicle in a public place. Yes, Section 147 does stipulate that requirement indeed as a mandatory requirement in an insurance policy, conversely speaking, however, Section 147 does not stipulate that an insurance policy cannot insure a person with respect to any liability if the vehicle is plied or used in a place which is not a public place. Therefore, per force, one has to turn to the contents of the insurance policy to find out, whether it contained terms and conditions which limited the liability of the insurance company only in case the vehicle was used in a public place. As noticed earlier in this judgment, apart from not taking any such plea in the written statement, the appellant Insurance Company did not either produce the Insurance Policy before the tribunal or adduce any evidence to the effect that the terms of the Insurance Policy absolved the Insurance Company from indemnifying if the vehicle was used in any place which was not a public place. This plea, therefore, is not available to the appellant at this stage. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Pinnaboyina Chittamma and others v. B. Narasingarao and others, reported in 2003 ACJ 1531, wherein the premises belonging to a factory were held to be a public place. I see no reason to take a different view in this case, apart from the aforesaid legal aspect, viz. that the appellant is prevented from raising this plea a I this stage in the present appeal in the absence of such pleas of fact having been raised in the written statement. 5. In so far as the second ground of attack is concerned, it is to be noticed that undoubtedly under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 an Insurer could issue an Insurance Policy with a limited liability. 5. In so far as the second ground of attack is concerned, it is to be noticed that undoubtedly under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 an Insurer could issue an Insurance Policy with a limited liability. However, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this has been completely done away with an in terms of Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, every Insurance Policy issued by an Insurer has to be of unlimited liability. That being the case, therefore, where an insurer has to satisfy an award passed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act or a award passed under the Workmens Compensation Act, the extent of liability being unlimited, it is not open to the insurer to urge that even though the award is passed under the Motor Vehicles Act, since the beneficiary of the award was a workman, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award only to the extent of the liability as is prescribed under the Workmens Compensation Act. Such plea would run counter to Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and shall also defeat the very purpose of creating unlimited liability concept arising from and covered by a Policy of Insurance. 6. This now brings us to the amounts of compensation. 7. The question relating to the amount of compensation has not been urged by the appellant in this appeal, but it is the subject matter of the Cross Appeal, being FAO No. 352 of 2003.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the Tribunal on a consideration of all relevant aspects awarded an amount of Rs. 3,62,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The only aspect with respect to determination of the compensation amount which attracted my attention is that the Tribunal applied the lower multiplier of 14 even though the age of the claimant at the time of accident was only 29 years. Looking to the fact that the claimant suffered 75% permanent disablement and he has become completely crippled for the rest of his life, in the facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, looking to the age of the claimant (29 years) the multiplier of 18 should be reasonable and just. By application of multiplier of 14 to the annual income of Rs. By application of multiplier of 14 to the annual income of Rs. 18,000 the Tribunal had assessed the compensation on that count at Rs. 2,52,000. However, I increase the compensation under that head from Rs. 2,52,000 to Rs. 3,24,000 by applying the multiplier of 18 to the annual income of Rs. 18,000. Rest of the award shall remain unchanged. Whatever amount the appellant has deposited in this Court shall now be paid to the claimant respondent by the Registry by remitting the cheque to his account. Remaining amount, as has now been increased by this judgment, shall be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company to the respondent/claimant within six weeks from today. If it is not done within the said period, it shall attract higher interest rate of 15% per annum from today till the amount is paid to the claimant respondent. Both the appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.