ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the claim petitions preferred by the claimants with respect to an accident dated 9. 5. 2001. M. A. No. 300 of 2003 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. Rest of the appeals have been preferred by the insurer, National insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the award imposing liability on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. ( 2 ) DECEASED and the injured persons were travelling in bus bearing No. MP 7-F 2628. It was driven by Mantu alias Devisingh, owned by Pravin Kumar Tyagi and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The bus was going from Gwalior to Guna. It was alleged that Mantu alias Devisingh drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which before 6 km to Guna the bus turned turtle at A. B. Road. Several persons died on the spot, others succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment and some of them sustained grievous injuries. Separate claim petitions were preferred by the claimants in various courts claiming compensation. The owner and driver were proceeded ex parte before the tribunal. They did not put in appearance in spite of service. ( 3 ) THE insurer in the reply contended that the vehicle was insured to cover the risk of 35 persons as per the conditions of the insurance policy. Only 35 persons could have been carried in the said bus. At the time of the accident 83 persons were travelling in the bus. The intimation of accident was not furnished by the insured to the insurer. Driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Excessive compensation was claimed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent act of driving by said Mantu alias Devisingh. Merely because more persons than insured were taken in the bus at the time of accident it could not be said to be a case of substantial breach on the part of the owner and insurer could not escape from the liability with respect to claimants. The number of persons in the vehicle had not contributed to the accident. In each case, compensation has been determined and has been ordered to be paid along with interest at the rate specified in the award. The number of persons in the vehicle had not contributed to the accident. In each case, compensation has been determined and has been ordered to be paid along with interest at the rate specified in the award. ( 5 ) MR. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurer, National insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the award on the ground that there was substantial breach of the policy of insurance. As per the condition of the permit, 35 passengers could have been carried in the vehicle, whereas 83 persons were carried in the vehicle, some of them were sitting on the roof of the bus. Thus, it could not be said to be a case where insurer could be saddled with the liability to make payment of compensation as there was substantial breach on the part of the owner. More than 40 cases have been filed claiming compensation, whereas the vehicle was insured to cover the risk of thirty-five persons. He has also submitted that in the cases relating to death the compensation awarded is on higher side, same be suitably reduced. ( 6 ) MR. B. D. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-appellants in M. A. No. 300 of 2003 filed for enhancement of compensation has submitted that the deceased was in employment. His age was between the age group of 35 and 40 years. He was earning a sum of Rs. 2,450 per month as apparent from the deposition of the witnesses; Asha Devi, CW 1, Pramod umarkar, CW 2, Haridas, CW 3 and prabalpratap Singh, CW 5. Salary certificate, Exh. P1, was also filed, which has been ignored by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, just compensation be awarded on a proper assessment. ( 7 ) MR. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer with usual vigour has resisted the claim for enhancement of compensation. ( 8 ) FIRST coming to question of quantum of compensation in each of the cases: m. A. No. 300 of 2003: this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased. Age of the deceased was claimed to be 35 years, but it was mentioned in the post-mortem examination report to be 40 years and in the supurdaginama to be 38 years. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased. Age of the deceased was claimed to be 35 years, but it was mentioned in the post-mortem examination report to be 40 years and in the supurdaginama to be 38 years. We find that the age of the deceased was in between 36 and 40 years, for which multiplier of 16 is applicable as provided in the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. We have gone through the salary certificate, p1, issued by Vidharwa Flour Mill. It is apparent that the deceased was working as assistant Supervisor and his salary was rs. 2,450. In order to prove the salary certificate, we find on record the deposition of Asha Devi, CW 1, Pramod Umarkar, cw 2 and Haridas, CW 3. We have no reason to discard the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses. We assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,450 per month. One-third amount is deducted towards the self expenditure of the deceased, which amount deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive. Thus, loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,633, the annual loss of dependency comes to rs. 1,633 x 12 = Rs. 19,596, appropriate multiplier is 16, which we apply as the widow and children are the claimants. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 19,596 x 16 = rs. 3,13,536. In addition, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 for loss of expectancy of life. Widow is also entitled for Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation comes to rs. 3,13,536 + Rs. 2,000+ Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 5,000=rs. 3,28,036 (rupees three lakh twenty-eight thousand thirty-six ). Compensation enhanced by us to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realisation. M. A. No. 931 of 2001: name of the deceased is Band, aged 20 years. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 70 per day and considering the age of parents and that of the deceased, applied the multiplier of 16. Age of the parents was 38/40 years. Choice of multiplier is as per the second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act. Compensation of Rs. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 70 per day and considering the age of parents and that of the deceased, applied the multiplier of 16. Age of the parents was 38/40 years. Choice of multiplier is as per the second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act. Compensation of Rs. 2,72,800 awarded, cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. We reject the submission of insurer. M. A. No. 409 of 2005: name of the deceased is Shrikrishna, aged 25 years. He was earning Rs. 2,500 per month, making deduction, dependency has been worked out at Rs. 1,700. Multiplier of 14 has been applied instead of 17. Compensation of Rs. 2,97,600 has been awarded. Claim petition has been filed by the widow and the parents, as such compensation which has been arrived at cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the insurer with respect to quantum of compensation. M. A. No. 930 of 2003: ramnath aged 24 years had died. His income has been assessed at Rs. 70 per day, Rs. 2,100 per month. The multiplier of 13 has been applied, compensation of rs. 2,94,600 has been awarded. Choice of multiplier is correct. Assessment of income of labourer cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, we find no case for reducing compensation is made out at the instance of prayer made by the insurer. M. A. No. 132 of 2004: bhimsingh, the deceased, was aged 40 years. He was doing work of welding, his income was Rs. 3,000 per month. Making necessary deduction, total compensation of Rs. 3,60,000, choice of multiplier of 15 is appropriate as per the Second Schedule. Claim is by widow and daughter. Thus, we find that the compensation awarded is not excessive in any manner. We reject the submission of the insurer. M. A. No. 940 of 2003: jagmohan, aged 19 years has died. His income has been taken to be Rs. 70 per day, Rs. 2,100 per month. One-third deduction has been made. Multiplier of 16 has been applied, which is not excessive even at the age of parents of 43-45 years. Compensation of Rs. 2,72,800 has been awarded. It cannot be said that excessive compensation has been awarded or choice of multiplier is inappropriate. Just compensation has been awarded. 70 per day, Rs. 2,100 per month. One-third deduction has been made. Multiplier of 16 has been applied, which is not excessive even at the age of parents of 43-45 years. Compensation of Rs. 2,72,800 has been awarded. It cannot be said that excessive compensation has been awarded or choice of multiplier is inappropriate. Just compensation has been awarded. We find no merit in the submission of the insurer that excessive compensation has been awarded. M. A. No. 945 of 2003: name of the deceased is Rambabu, aged 27 years. The multiplier of 18 was applied. The income has been assessed at Rs. 70 per day. Considering that the claim was preferred by the widow, compensation of rs. 3,11,400 has been awarded, which cannot be excessive in any manner. Hence, we reject the prayer of the insurer to reduce compensation. M. A. No. 946 of 2003: name of the deceased is Ummed, aged 24 years. Claim petition was filed by the widow. Income has been taken at Rs. 70 per day, Rs. 2,100 per month, 1/3rd deduction has been made. Appropriate multiplier has been applied, thus, the compensation of Rs. 2,94,600 has been awarded, is not excessive in any manner. We are unable to accept the submission made by the insurer that the compensation is excessive. M. A. No. 943 of 2003: name of the deceased is Gopal Rajak. His age was between 21 and 25 years. Widow and children are the claimants. Multiplier of 17 has been applied. Per day income has been taken at Rs. 70, which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. The compensation of Rs. 2,94,600 has been awarded. We find that no case for reduction in amount of compensation at the behest of insurer is made out. M. A. No. 947 of 2003: name of the deceased is Suresh Rajak. The claim petition has been preferred by the daughter. Considering the age, appropriate multiplier has been applied, is not in dispute. Compensation of Rs. 2,89,600 has been awarded which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Thus, we reject prayer of insurer to reduce compensation. M. A. No. 408 of 2005: name of the deceased is Hakam Singh, aged 20 years. Claim petition was filed by mother and brother of deceased. Mother was aged 45 years. Considering the age of the mother, multiplier of 15 has been applied. Thus, we reject prayer of insurer to reduce compensation. M. A. No. 408 of 2005: name of the deceased is Hakam Singh, aged 20 years. Claim petition was filed by mother and brother of deceased. Mother was aged 45 years. Considering the age of the mother, multiplier of 15 has been applied. Income has been taken at Rs. 2,500 per month. Dependency has been taken at rs. 1,700. Compensation of Rs. 3,18,000 has been awarded, which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Thus, we reject the submission of Mr. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer that the compensation awarded is excessive. M. A. No. 944 of 2003: name of the deceased is Chironji Rajak. His income has been taken at Rs. 70 per day, Rs. 2,100 per month. Choice of multiplier has not been disputed. Thus, we find that the compensation which has been awarded at the aforesaid income cannot be said to be excessive. M. A. No. 937 of 2003: name of the deceased is Matadeen. His per day income has been taken at Rs. 70, monthly Rs. 2,100. Necessary deductions have been made. Choice of multiplier has not been disputed. Thus, the assessment of income at Rs. 70 per day for a labourer cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, we find compensation awarded of Rs. 2,94,600 is not excessive. We disallow prayer to reduce compensation made by insurer. M. A. Nos. 936, 938 and 941 of 2003: these three appeals relate to injuries. Quantum of compensation has not been assailed in these appeals by insurer. ( 9 ) COMING to the main submission raised by Mr. B. N. Malhotra, appearing on behalf of the insurer about breach of condition of policy by the owner. It appears that the bus was overloaded at the time of accident. It was carrying more number of passengers than allowed as per the terms and conditions of the permit. Vehicle was insured to cover the risk of 35 passengers. However, there is nothing on record and no evidence could be projected by Mr. B. N. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer that number of passengers had contributed to the accident, as such, in our considered opinion, if more humans were allowed to board the bus than the capacity, it cannot constitute substantial breach on the part of the owner. B. N. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer that number of passengers had contributed to the accident, as such, in our considered opinion, if more humans were allowed to board the bus than the capacity, it cannot constitute substantial breach on the part of the owner. The Apex Court in b. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), has followed the decision in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), in view of the fact that there was "breach of carrying humans in a goods vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of the insurance policy, it was laid down that the same cannot be said to be such fundamental breach so as to afford ground to the insurer to deny indemnification" unless there were some factors which contributed to the causing of the accident. The Apex Court has laid down in B. V. Nagaraju (supra) that exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down to serve the main purpose of it to indemnify the insured. Our conclusion is fortified by the above decision of Apex Court in B. V. Nagaraju (supra) and Skandia Insurance co. Ltd. (supra ). The Apex Court in B. V. Nagaraju (supra) has laid down thus: " (7) It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Here, it is nobody's case that driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the oncoming vehicle has collided head-on against the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor. In Skandia's case, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), this court paved the way towards reading down the contractual clause by observing as follows: '. . . When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by it, by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice. The court cannot but opt for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly doctrinaire approach, very same conclusion would emerge in obeisance to the doctrine of 'reading down' the exclusion clause in the light of the 'main purpose' of the provision so that the 'exclusion clause' does not cross swords with the 'main purpose' highlighted earlier. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose. The theory which needs no support is supported by Carter's Breach of Contract vide para 251. To quote: notwithstanding the general ability of contracting parties to agree to exclusion clauses which operate to define obligations there exists a rule, usually referred to as the 'main purpose rule', which may limit the application of wide exclusion clauses defining a promisor's contractual obligations. For example, in Glynn v. Margetson and Co. , (1893) AC 351, lord Halsbury, L. C. stated: it seems to me that in construing this document, which is a contract of carriage between the parties, one must in the first instance look at the whole instrument and not at one part of it only. Looking at the whole instrument, and seeing what one must regard. . . , (1893) AC 351, lord Halsbury, L. C. stated: it seems to me that in construing this document, which is a contract of carriage between the parties, one must in the first instance look at the whole instrument and not at one part of it only. Looking at the whole instrument, and seeing what one must regard. . . as its main purpose, one must reject words, indeed whole provisions, if they are inconsistent with what one assumes to be the main purpose of the contract. ' although this rule played a role in the development of the doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of the rule was acknowledge when the doctrine was rejected by the House of lords in Suisse Atlantique Societe d' armement Maritime S. A. v. N. V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, (1967) 1 ac 361. Accordingly, wide exclusion clauses will be read down to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the main purpose, or object of the contract. " ( 10 ) MR. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer has further submitted that the driver was under the influence of liquor. However, he could not point out any evidence on record to show that the driver was under the influence of liquor. Having failed to prove the aforesaid aspect the insurer cannot escape the liability from making the payment of compensation. ( 11 ) THUS, in view of the aforesaid discussion, merely because more number of persons had been allowed to travel in the vehicle, insurer cannot escape the liability. An insurer cannot be allowed to pick and choose the persons for making payment of compensation. Merely because there was inconsequential breach of permit, which has not led to the cause of accident, it cannot constitute substantial breach of owner so as to exonerate the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Thus, the finding arrived at by learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. Liability is held to be joint and several in each case. ( 12 ) THUS, we find merit in the appeal m. A. No. 300 of 2003, same is allowed. Compensation of Rs. 3,28,036 is awarded. The enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 12 ) THUS, we find merit in the appeal m. A. No. 300 of 2003, same is allowed. Compensation of Rs. 3,28,036 is awarded. The enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The rest of the appeals preferred by the insurer are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. It is left open to the claimants to apply before the Claims tribunal in M. A. No. 300 of 2003 to pray for disbursement as per the decision in general Manager, Kerala State Road trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). No costs. Orders accordingly. - .