Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-These three civil miscellaneous appeals have arisen out of the common award dated 02.02.1995 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh after a consolidated trial of two Claim Cases No. 4/1994 (62/1988) and 162/1988 relating to the same vehicular accident and common questions of law and facts being involved, were heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment . 2. The accident in question occurred on 110.1987 between Hanumangarh Town and Hanumangarh Junction because of collision of a mini truck bearing registration No. PAW. 2040 and a tempo bearing registration No. RSC 7653. In the accident Mohanlal and Vijay Kumar sustained injuries and Mohanlal succumbed to the injuries. Claim Application No. 4/1994 (62/1988) was submitted by Santra Devi & Ors., the wife and minor children of the deceased Mohanlal; whereas Claim Application No. 162/1988 was submitted by the injured Vijay Kumar claiming compensation on various heads against non-applicant No. 1 and 2 being the owners of truck PAW 2040 non-applicant No. 3, its driver and non-applicant No. 4 as its insurer. 3. By the impugned award dated 02.02.1995, the Tribunal has partly allowed both the claim applications, awarded a sum of Rs, 2,40,000/-to the claimants in Case No. 4/1994 and of Rs. 30,000/-to the claimant in Case No. 162/1988, but held that liability of the insurer shall remain limited to a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-only. The owners of the vehicle have preferred CMA Nos. 49/1996 and 25/1997 questioning the award on its limiting the liability of the insurer. The claimants in Claim Case No. 4/1994 have preferred CMA No. 561/1995 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in these appeals are that the deceased Mohanlal and the injured Vijay Kumar with other passengers boarded the tempo RSC 7653 at 7:15 PM from Hanumangarh Junction for Hanumangarh Town. When the tempo reached near Hanumanji-ki-murti, mini truck PAW 2040 collided with it whereby the tempo capsized and its occupants sustained injuries. Mohanlal succumbed to the injuries on the spot whereas Vijay Kumar sustained several grievous injuries. 5. When the tempo reached near Hanumanji-ki-murti, mini truck PAW 2040 collided with it whereby the tempo capsized and its occupants sustained injuries. Mohanlal succumbed to the injuries on the spot whereas Vijay Kumar sustained several grievous injuries. 5. While stating rash and negligent driving by the truck driver, the claimants in Case No. 4/1994 Smt. Santra Devi, wife of deceased Mohanlal with Vijay Kumar, Raj, Kumar, Sunita Kumari and Manjubala his minor children, submitted that the deceased was 38 ½ years of age; was employed as a Lower Division Clerk in Sales Tax Department and was earning Rs. 1,726/-per month; he had simple habits and was spending a little on himself ; his emoluments would have reached about Rs. 4,000/-till retirement and for his untimely death, the wife has been deprived of the marital life and the future of the children has darkened as they would require substantial amount for their education and marriages and they have been deprived of love, affection and guidance of their father. On different heads, compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,94,120/-was claimed. In the other Claim Case No. 162/1988 the injured Vijay Kumar taking the same averments about the accident, its cause and responsibility, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/-for the loss suffered by him on account of the injuries. 6. Two separate replies were submitted to the claim applications, one by the non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e., owners and driver of the vehicle and another by the non-applicant No. 4, the insurer. The owners and driver while stating a general denial of the claim averments, alleged that the accident was not caused by rash or negligent driving by the truck driver, that the income of the deceased has not rightly been stated. It was lastly averred that if at all any compensation be found payable, the same be got recovered from the insurer. The non-applicant No. 4 New India Assurance Company also submitted in their reply a general denial of the claim averments and alleged that the tempo was being plied in violation of the traffic rules by taking more than 8 passengers; and that the accident was likely to have been caused by the tempo going out of control because of excess occupants. In additional submissions, it was stated that the insured has not informed the insurer of the accident which resulted in violation of policy conditions; that the answering non-applicant relies upon Section 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for its defence; that there was no liability of the vehicle PAW 2040 and only the tempo RSC 7653 was responsible and yet if any liability be found, the share of the other vehicle be also determined and that various other claims have been filed and if there be any liability then it would be limited to the extent of Section 95. The insurer also reserved its right to contest the claim application on merits and also submitted that the insured was required to prove that at the time of accident, the vehicle was used for him and in his control by a driver holding valid driving licence. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in these cases,- Þ¼1½ D;k vizkFkhZ la- 3 us rkjh[k 17-10-1987 dks feuh Vªd ua- ih-,-MCyw 2040 ykijokgh o rsth ls pyk dj guqekux<+ VkÅu taM ++ ij VSEiw myV x;k o Dku jksEiw uEcj vkj-,l-lh 7653 ds VDdj ekjh] ftllsa Vsftlls eksguyky dh e`R;q gksx; h o izkFkhZ fot; dqekj ?kk;y gks x;k\ ¼2½ vk;k VSVuk ds le; lokfj;kas ds vfr Hkkjd ds dkj.k okgu VSEiw ua- vkj-,l-lh-7653 easnq?kZEiw pkyd ds fu;a=.k esa ugha jgk] ;fn , slk gSa rks Dyse ij D;k vlj gS\ ¼3½ D;k izkFkhZ;k ua- 17]94]120 #i;s vizkFkhZx.k ls ikus dh vf /kdkjh gS o fot; dqekj izkFkhZ 1]05]000@& #i;s ikus dk vf /kdkjh gS\ se ij D;k vlj ¼4½ vk;k chek/kkjd }kjk chek iksylh dh krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] ;fn ,lk gS rks DysgS\ ¼½ vuqrks"kAß 8. In oral evidence, the claimant Santra Devi was examined as AW. 1, whereas her son Vijay Kumar was examined as AW. 2 and the injured Vijay Kumar was examined as AW. 3. On behalf of the non-applicant No. 4 only one witness Kailash Chandra, a Senior Assistant in the Regional Office of the insurer was examined as NAW. 1. In oral evidence, the claimant Santra Devi was examined as AW. 1, whereas her son Vijay Kumar was examined as AW. 2 and the injured Vijay Kumar was examined as AW. 3. On behalf of the non-applicant No. 4 only one witness Kailash Chandra, a Senior Assistant in the Regional Office of the insurer was examined as NAW. 1. In documentary evidence, inter alia, salary certificate of the deceased Mohanlal was produced as Exhibit-1, first information report relating to the accident as Exhibit- 2, post-mortem report of the deceased Mohanlal as Exhibit-3 and certificate of insurance as Exhibit-5 apart from other challan papers. 9. After evidence of the parties, learned Judge of the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the questions involved in these cases by way of the impugned award dated 02.02.1995. Claim case filed by Santra Devi & Ors. was belated and their prayer for condonation of delay was considered and granted with reference to the ailment with typhoid of the claimant Santra Devi. Issues No. 1 and 2 were both related to the responsibility for the accident and after considering the evidence on record produced by the claimants and want of evidence on behalf of the non-applicants, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants and issue No. 2 against the non-applicants and, therefore, responsibility for the accident was fixed on the vehicle PAW. 2040. 10. Taking up quantification of compensation, the learned Judge of the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Mohanlal as shown in Exhibit-1 at Rs. 1,564/-after deductions; his age at 38 years and while deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenditure, calculated a monthly dependency of Rs. 1,000/-and for his likely 20 years Government service, the multiplicand of Rs. 12,000/-was capitalized by a multiplier of 20 to arrive at a figure of Rs. 2,40,000/-for compensation. Vijay Kumar, the injured was allowed a lump sum of Rs. 30,000/-towards injuries and infirmities. Issue No. 4, as noticed above, was framed on the question if the insured has violated the policy conditions, and this issue was precisely decided against the insurer with the observation that the insurer has failed to establish as to which term of the policy was violated? 11. 30,000/-towards injuries and infirmities. Issue No. 4, as noticed above, was framed on the question if the insured has violated the policy conditions, and this issue was precisely decided against the insurer with the observation that the insurer has failed to establish as to which term of the policy was violated? 11. With the discussion aforesaid, all the issues stood decided but thereafter, the learned Judge of the Tribunal took up for consideration the contention on behalf of the insurer made on the basis of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270 that their liability was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-whereas the claimants contended that the insurer has unlimited liability towards third party as it has charged extra premium of Rs. 100/-. The learned Judge was of opinion that in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court, the insurer could have extended the liability by taking additional premium but in the present case the liability of the insurer has been specifically stated at Rs. 1,50,000/-and, therefore, the insurer was not liable beyond this amount. 12. On the considerations aforesaid, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-to Santra Devi and others and Rs. 30,000/-to Vijay Kumar in their respective claim cases, ordered deduction of the amount already received by them and then directed that the claimants Santra Devi and Ors., and Vijay Kumar would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-in the proportion of their claim from the insurer and the remaining amount they may recover from the truck owner. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also allowed. 13. Assailing the award, learned Counsel for the truck owners in CMA Nos. 49/1996 and 25/1997 contended that the Tribunal was in error in assuming that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-in these cases in total and in not considering that extra premium of Rs. 100/-was charged by the insurer for unlimited extension of its liability for third party. Learned Counsel also submitted that the plea of limited liability was not taken by the insurer in the written statement nor any issue was framed in that regard and the Tribunal was in error in proceeding to consider the alleged limited liability of the insurer in Para 14 of the award. Learned Counsel also submitted that the plea of limited liability was not taken by the insurer in the written statement nor any issue was framed in that regard and the Tribunal was in error in proceeding to consider the alleged limited liability of the insurer in Para 14 of the award. Learned Counsel also submitted that the insurer has neither produced the proposal form nor the policy to substantiate its allegations and the plea raised by the insurer ought to have been rejected. Learned Counsel referred to and relied upon the decisions in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 31 ; Dr. Gop Ramchandani vs. Onkar Singh,1993 ACJ 577; National Insurance Co. vs. Hans Kanwar & Ors.,2004 ACTC 476; and Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors., 1981 ACJ 507. 14. Learned Counsel for the insurer on the other hand submitted that the terms of the certificate of insurance Exhibit-5 are clear to the effect that third party liability was undertaken by the insurer only upto Rs. 1,50,000/-that the pleadings as taken in Para 17 of the written statement clearly state that the insurer was liable only as per policy conditions, and that the policy number has been clearly stated in the certificate Exhibit-5. Learned Counsel submitted that charging of Rs. 100/-additional premium was only to enhance the liability from Rs. 50,000/-to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Learned Counsel referred to and relied upon the decisions in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore, 1988 ACJ 270;; New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shanti Bai & Ors.,1995 ACJ 470 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors., 2002 ACJ 271. 15. Learned Counsel for the claimants while supporting the owners so far the unlimited liability of the insurer is concerned, contended that the quantum of compensation awarded in the present case remains grossly inadequate for the reason that the Tribunal has proceeded erroneously in taking a static figure of Rs. 1,564/-as income of the deceased and despite his age of 38 years, not providing for reasonable enhancement and not taking care of future prospects. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the multiplier of 20 as adopted is corrected as per Schedule Second to the Act of 1988, the multiplicand figure deserves to be suitably enhanced by providing for future prospects. 1,564/-as income of the deceased and despite his age of 38 years, not providing for reasonable enhancement and not taking care of future prospects. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the multiplier of 20 as adopted is corrected as per Schedule Second to the Act of 1988, the multiplicand figure deserves to be suitably enhanced by providing for future prospects. Learned Counsel also contended that the Tribunal was seriously in error in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium for the wife and for loss of love, affection and guidance for the children and even for funeral expenses. Learned Counsel submitted that the award deserves to be suitably modified and compensation amount deserves to be enhanced. .16. Rival submissions have been given thoughtful and anxious consideration and the entire record has been scanned through. .17. Broadly two questions arise for determination in these appeals: .(1) As towhether the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-in total for both the claim cases, and .(2) As to whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal could be said to be a just compensation in claim Case No. 4/1994? 18. The first point for determination need not have even arisen in the present cases at all. Learned Counsel for the appellants have rightly contended that this particular aspect that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-only was not even raised in the reply submitted by the insurer. The reply averments have been noticed in detail hereinbefore and it is apparent that the insurer did not take a specific plea that although they had insured the vehicle in question and have even charged extra premium for enhancement of the liability, but the enhancement was restricted to Rs. 1,50,000/-for death or injury to a third party. Learned Counsel for the insurer attempted to read the phraseology of Para 17 of the reply to mean as if the insurer has taken such a plea. Para 17 reads as under:- Þ17-fd mÙkjnkrk viuh izfrj{kk gsrq eksVj;ku vf /kfu;e 1939 dh /kkjk 95 o 96 ds izko/kkuksa dks vuqdwy djrk gSAß 19. Having examined the pleading, this Court is unable to countenance the submissions that such averment was sufficient enough to be a plea to the effect that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. Having examined the pleading, this Court is unable to countenance the submissions that such averment was sufficient enough to be a plea to the effect that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-and charging of additional premium was also referable only to the liability upto Rs. 1,50,000/-in respect of third parties like the claimants. A nebulous plea as stated in Para 17 of the written statement cannot partake the character of a specific plea of limited liability and for this reason the Tribunal was right in not framing any issue in that respect and the discussion in Para 14 of the impugned award regarding limited liability of the insurer remains beyond the issues to which the parties were put to trial. 20. Learned Counsel for the vehicle owners has rightly relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in T. Paulo Aviras case (Supra), and there is enough substance in his contention that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to have allowed the insurer to raise an entirely new plea after the trial nor the issues could be permitted to be stretched to the extent that they would cover matters which are not within the pleadings on which they are founded. In fact, in the present case there is not even an issue framed on the limited liability aspect. 21. Apart from the want of pleadings, this Court finds that the insurer has produced on witness NAW-1 Kailash Chandra, a Senior Assistant in the Regional Office of the insurer who has only made a cursory statement that Exhibit-5 insurance policy was issued by their office and according to this policy, the liability for third party was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. He was not aware if such limited liability was informed to the lawyer or not but has admitted that the written statement is prepared only on the basis of policy. 22. It may be pointed out that there are two documents on record marked Exhibit-5, one is a photostat copy of the certificate of insurance No. 567471-D filed by the claimants with the claim application available at Page C-7 of the record; another is a true copy of certificate filed by the insurer on 012.1991 which is available at Page C-27 of the record. Both of them have been marked as Exhibit-5 but, the later document, although stated as a true copy, is not a ditto copy of the former. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Schedule of premium on material particulars in both the documents is the same. The Schedule of premium in the document Exhibit-5 shows that it is a comprehensive policy and in Clause (b) relating to the “liability to public risk”, a premium of Rs. 240/-has been charged for limited liability to authorised non-fare paying passengers; then limited liability for one driver and one cleaner has been undertaken by charging further Rs. 16/-of premium; and then it has been stated regarding increased third party limits that for Section II (1)(i) it is “unlimited” and for Section II (1) (ii) it is stated at Rs. 1,50,000/- and an additional premium of Rs. 100/- has been charged, therefor. 23. The Schedule of Premium in Exhibit-5 as produced by the insurer may be quoted in extenso for ready reference: Schedule of Premium A: Own Damage Basic B: Liability to Public Risk as per End IMT 23 Rs. 850.00 Add: for I.I. to authorised non fare paying passengers per End IMT 14 (b) Rs. 240.00 Add: 3.40% on Extra Electrial or Electronic fitting as per End IMT 71 Rs. Limit any one passenger Rs. Limit any one Accdt. Rs. Add for I.I. To paid driver and/or Cleaner as per End IMT 16 IDITC Rs. 16.00 Add. I.10% on total 11V Rs. 2117.00 Add for Additional ...Tons Rs. 2967.40 Less: % discount on Excess of Rs..... (Max Rs.......) as per END IMT. 1.o 25% H:V Rs. Rs. .......... 481.22 Add for increased T.P. Limits Section II I (i) Unlimited Section 11 I (ii) Rs. 1,50,000/-Add: for O.D. Rs. Rs. 100.00 2486.18 Add for Riot & Strike 0.25% of Total I.E. V. As per END INT. 21 ADD...... Rs. Rs. .......... Comprehensive: Premium (A B) Less: 10% Sp. Discount (if due) Rs. ............ 2842.18 Less: % No Claim Bonus Rs. 2486.18 Net Premium Due(Rounded Off) Rs. Rs./ 2842.00 (Emphasis added) 24. A bare look at the Schedule of premium aforesaid makes it clear that there are two different provisions made for increasing of third party limits, which naturally means increasing beyond the statutory limits and for Section II (1) (i) it has been specifically stated as “Unlimited” and Rs. 2486.18 Net Premium Due(Rounded Off) Rs. Rs./ 2842.00 (Emphasis added) 24. A bare look at the Schedule of premium aforesaid makes it clear that there are two different provisions made for increasing of third party limits, which naturally means increasing beyond the statutory limits and for Section II (1) (i) it has been specifically stated as “Unlimited” and Rs. 1,50,000/-has been stated only in relation to Section II (1) (ii). The sections referred therein seemingly refer to the Tariff Regulations but the insurer has never specified as to for what purpose “Unlimited” liability was stated regarding third parties. An additional premium of Rs. 100/-had been charged for entire increase of the third party limits. 25. The insurer having specifically undertaken unlimited liability for third party and having charged Rs. 100/-extra premium, was entirely unjustified in representing before the Tribunal that its third party liability was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The specific clause appearing in the certificate of “unlimited” liability qua the third parties has never even been explained by the insurer nor even looked at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The liability was clearly unlimited and an additional premium of Rs. 100/-was charged for increase of third party limits and there is no reason to believe that this “Unlimited” liability was not under-taken for the death or bodily injury to a person. Any assumption of limited liability of the insurer remains wholly baseless and rather contrary to the documentary evidence on the record. Being aware of such situation, the insurer has rightly not taken such a baseless plea in its written statement and the Tribunal has also rightly not framed any issue, therefore, and it was wholly unjustified on the part of the learned Tribunal to have suddenly taken up and uphold such a plea in the impugned award. .26. It may also be pointed out that the document Exhibit-5 is the certificate of insurance No. 567471-D and it distinctly States policy number as 4573115124/018. The original policy was never produced before the Tribunal nor the proposal form was produced to clarify about the contract between the insured and the insurer. In Dr. .26. It may also be pointed out that the document Exhibit-5 is the certificate of insurance No. 567471-D and it distinctly States policy number as 4573115124/018. The original policy was never produced before the Tribunal nor the proposal form was produced to clarify about the contract between the insured and the insurer. In Dr. Gop Ramchandanis case (Supra), this Court has dealt with such kind of a situation where only certificate of insurance was produced and the original insurance policy and the proposal forms were not produced which would have shown as to what type of .insurance the insured wanted to take. This Court, inter alia, held:-“But the fact remains that the proposal form is not on record nor the original policy is on record and the Insurance Company has failed to produce the original policy and, therefore, the insurance company has not proved the original contract or policy of insurance in accordance with law.” .27. The present one is a case akin to the decision in Dr. Gop Ramchandanis case (Supra), and the Insurance Company in the present case has also failed to prove the original contract in accordance with law. Even in the case of Jugal Kishore (Supra), sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for insurer, the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to emphasise the need of filing of insurance policy by the insurer if it wishes to take the defence of limited liability thus,- .“We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy alongwith its defence.” 28. Viewed from any angle, this Court is satisfied that the plea raised by the insurer in the present case was totally unfounded and rather unwarranted. 29. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the insurer have no application to the facts of the present case and on the contrary, in the decisions aforesaid, the Honble Supreme Court has very clearly laid down the law that it was always open for the insurer to undertake a liability beyond the statutory liability by charging additional premium. .30. .30. In the case of Jugal Kishore (Supra), the schedule to the policy showed that the liability undertaken with regard to the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of motor vehicle falling under Section II (1) (i) was confined to “such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939”. In the case of Shanti Bai (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that a comprehensive insurance does not automatically cover the liability with regard to third party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit and the liability which was undertaken by the insurer was to the extent to statutory liability of 15,000/-rupees per passenger and there was no such contract between the insurer and the insured to cover unlimited liability in respect of an accident to a passenger. In the case of C.M. Jaya (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court found again a kind of policy where no any additional or higher premium was paid to cover unlimited or higher liability than the statutory liability. The Honble Supreme Court after referring to the previous decisions, inter alia, held:- .“Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court.” 5.31. The decisions aforesaid are hardly of any assistance to the insurer in the present case when, contrary to the assertion sought to be made regarding limits of liability, it is found that specifically an additional premium has been charged for undertaking unlimited third party liability so far Section II (1) (i) was concerned and the insurer never clarified by relevant material on record if the said clause does not refer to the case of death or bodily injury to third parties. 1.32. 1.32. In view of the additional premium charged by the insurer, the ratio of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hans Kanwars case (Supra), directly applies and it is now not open for the insurer to urge that the policy was not for unlimited liability or that extra premium was not charged. 2.33. The appeals filed by the owners deserve to be allowed and the findings in Para 14 in the impugned award deserve to be set aside. The insurer remains liable to satisfy the entire amount of award in these cases. 3.34. Coming to the question of adequacy of the quantum of compensation as involved in CMA No. 561/1995 Smt. Santra Devi & Ors. vs. Firm Hari Singh Pratap Singh & Ors., having examined the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned award remains grossly inadequate and even the reasonable amount of compensation has been denied by the learned Judge on entirely irrelevant considerations while ignoring the relevant principles applicable to the case. 4.35. The deceased Mohanlal having lost his life because of the injuries sustained in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck PAW . 2040 remains undeniable. The deceased was about 38 years of age and was employed as a Clerk in the Sales Tax Department. He was obviously in a settled job and had all chances of future increments with a long service tenure still left. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has taken his earning at Rs. 1,564/-per month, shown as his last salary, then deducted more than 1/3rd for his personal expenses and assumed the dependency at Rs. 1,000/-of t