Judgment :- (Appeals under Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 15-4-1997 in MCOP No.3522 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes) Madras.) F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. These two appeals arise out of the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes), Madras, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 15-4-1997, passed in M.C.O.P. No.3522 of 1995. C.M.A. No.1072 of 1999 has been preferred by the claimant as against the quantum of compensation while C.M.A. No.184 of 1998 has been preferred by the Corporation of Chennai as against that part of the award holding that the vehicle involved in the accident was not covered by the policy taken with the insurance company and, therefore, Corporation of Chennai alone is liable to pay the compensation. 2. In this judgment, we refer to the appellant in C.M.A. No.1072 of 1999 as claimant and the Corporation of Chennai as the first respondent, vehicle owner as the second respondent and the insurance company as the third respondent. 3. Brief facts which are required to be stated are: The claimant’s husband one Murugan was employed as a Sanitary Worker in the first respondent Corporation. On the date of the accident, he was stated to be 30 years old. According to the claimant, her husband, who was a sanitary worker, was travelling in the vehicle belonging to the second respondent, which was taken on hire by the first respondent Corporation, on 21-7-1995, along with certain other similarly placed employees that at about 10.15 a.m., at Nungambakkam High Court, just opposite to Hotel Taj Coramandel, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, which is a tractor with a trailer, the claimant fell down from the moving trailer in which he was sitting and that the rear wheel of the trailer ran over his body and thereby caused his instantaneous death. According to the claimant her husband was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- per month and since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the respondents were liable to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. According to the claimant her husband was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- per month and since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the respondents were liable to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence placed before it, reached a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 30 years, that he was getting a salary of Rs.2,079/- and after deducting one-third of it for his personal maintenance, the balance which he was contributing to the family would have been Rs.1,386/- and, on that basis, by applying the multiplier of 10, arrived at the compensation at a sum of Rs.1,66,320/-. To the said sum, the Tribunal added further sum by way of damages towards loss of consortium and thereby made the total compensation payable at a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal went into the question as to who was liable to pay the compensation (i.e.) whether the employer or the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company. On that issue, the Tribunal found that the policy specifically mentioned that it would cover only if the tractor and trailer had been used for agricultural purposes and not otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its impugned order, while determining the compensation payable at Rs.1,75,000/-, directed the first respondent Corporation to pay the said sum with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition, viz. 13-11-1995 and dismissed the claim as against respondents 2 and 3. 5. Assailing the said award, learned counsel for the claimant in the first place would contend that once the age of the deceased was ascertained at 30, going by the figures provided in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the correct multiplier should have been 17 and the claimant is entitled for a higher compensation by applying the said multiplier. The learned counsel would then contend that the damages towards loss of consortium, learned counsel contends that in a similar case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.20,000/- by way of damages for loss of consortium and, therefore, the said amount should be awarded. 6. As against the above submissions, Mr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation, would contend that since the negligence on the part of the driver was fully established, the Tribunal ought not to have granted any relief at all to he claimant. 6. As against the above submissions, Mr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation, would contend that since the negligence on the part of the driver was fully established, the Tribunal ought not to have granted any relief at all to he claimant. In the next place, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in not fastening the liability on the insurance company. According to the learned counsel, when the first respondent Corporation engaged the services of the second respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, the Corporation cannot be expected to know as to what was the nature and scope of the policy acquired by the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, on that score, the liability ought not to have been fastened solely on the Corporation. It was contended that in any event Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the third respondent insurance company by ordering indemnification by the second respondent. Lastly, it was contended that the rate of interest applied by the Tribunal was exorbitant in the light of the present rate of interest that is being granted by the nationalised banks and the other financial institutions, which has now been scaled down. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on a perusal of the impugned award as well as the evidence placed before the Tribunal, we find that there is no dispute about the accident and the employment of the deceased with the first respondent Corporation. As far as the age was concerned, the Tribunal has categorically found that the first respondent Corporation being in possession of the service records of the deceased failed to produce the same nor disputed the age claimed as 30 years. Therefore, the said conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 8. As far as the multiplier is concerned, we find that under the Schedule for the age group of 30-35, the multiplier provided is 17. However, a judgment of the Supreme Court has been placed before us, which is reported in (2005) 8 SCC 473 (Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and others) wherein in respect of a victim who was aged 34 years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as under when it comes to the question of applying the multiplier factors provided in the schedule. Paragraph 18 reads as under: “In fact in Trilok Chandra case (1996) 4 SCC 362 after reference to the Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be an invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age.” After holding as above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case applied the multiplier of 13 to a person who was 34 years old. Therefore, we have no difficulty in applying the very same principle in the matter of application of multiplier factor and, accordingly, we feel that it would be fair and just if ‘13’ multiplier factor is applied to the case on hand. We find the salary drawn by the deceased was Rs.2,079/- at the relevant point of time. Considering the proximate duration of future employment till the date of his retirement and the consequential revisions in his pay that would have been accrued to him, we arrive at the salary payable to the deceased at a sum of Rs.2,079/- i.e. (Rs.2079 + 50% thereof, i.e. 1039.50 = Rs.3118.50 less 1/3rd towards personal expenses = Rs.2,079/-). On that basis, when the compensation is worked out (i.e.) Rs.2,079 x 12 x 13, it comes to Rs.3,24,324/-. 9. As far as the contention raised on behalf of the first respondent Corporation on the negligence aspect of it, on a perusal of the oral evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3, who travelled along with the deceased on the fateful day as well as the complaint preferred by the one other employee who was also travelling along with the deceased, we find that the whole negligence was on the part of the driver who is stated to have driven the tractor in a high speed and also swerved the vehicle suddenly in a high speed which unfortunately threw the deceased on the road, who was sitting inside the trailer, and thereby he was caught underneath the rear wheel of the trailer which snatched away his life. From the cross-examination of those witnesses, we do not find any scope to take a different view than what has been arrived at by the Tribunal. Therefore, on the said issue, we are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent Corporation. 10. As far as the interest part of it is concerned, we wish to be guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2001 (1) Supreme 5 (Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others). Paragraph 24 is relevant for our purpose which is to the following effect: “Now we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the M.V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that ‘in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf.’ Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment, and interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date.” In the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same has been further reduced to 7.5% obviously taking note of the prevailing interest rate in the banking sector. The said decision is reported in (2005) 8 SCC 473 (Managing Director, TNSTC v. K.I. Bindu and others). Having regard to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the payment of interest, we hold that the rate of interest can at best be 7.5% per annum alone. 11. As far as the compensation ordered towards loss of consortium is concerned, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, viz. Having regard to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the payment of interest, we hold that the rate of interest can at best be 7.5% per annum alone. 11. As far as the compensation ordered towards loss of consortium is concerned, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, viz. (2005) 11 SCC 387 (Chellammal and others v. Kailasam and another), we do not find any principle having been set out as to how the quantum of compensation on that head should be arrived at. In the said case, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of companionship which has been merely affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, based on the said judgment, it cannot be held that in every case on the head of of loss of companionship, a sum of Rs.20,000/- should be as a rule. Inasmuch as the Tribunal, on an analysis of the materials placed before it, had reached a conclusion that a particular sum by way of damages towards loss of companionship is to be paid, in the absence of any serious irregularity or illegality in the said conclusion, we do not find any scope to interfere with the said part of the award. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent Corporation as to the liability of the insurance company is concerned, it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2005 (1) CTC 706 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others) that the stipulations contained in the insurance policy are to be strictly construed. In the said decision, earlier 3-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) CTC 210 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others) was followed. The extracted portion of that judgment in paragraph 8 reads as under: “By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is ‘including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle’. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words ‘any person’ occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression ‘any person’ contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorized representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise.” Having regard to the said legal position set down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is too late in the day for the first respondent Corporation to contend that de hors the terms of the policy in the case on hand which only covers the use of the vehicle only for agricultural purposes, the first respondent Corporation could still contend that the insurance company should be held liable. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the said submission so made on behalf of the first respondent Corporation. 13. Having regard to our above conclusions, we modify the award of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the application of multiplier factor and the monthly salary as 13 and Rs.2,079/- respectively and arrive at the compensation payable by the first respondent Corporation at a sum of Rs.3,24,324/-. The damages towards loss of consortium as awarded by the Tribunal is maintained at a sum of Rs.8,680/-. In the appeal in C.M.A. No.1072 of 1997, enhancement of compensation to the extent stated above is ordered while in the appeal in C.M.A. No.184 of 1998, the rate of interest is ordered as 7.5% per annum instead of 12% per annum. The first respondent Corporation is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.3,24,324/- with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e. 13-11-1995 till the date of payment. Whatever difference payable to the claimant along with the accrued interest shall be worked out and deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.3522 of 1995 and on such deposit being made, the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the same. Whatever difference payable to the claimant along with the accrued interest shall be worked out and deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.3522 of 1995 and on such deposit being made, the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the same. 14. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated above.