JUDGMENT S. Samvatsar, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both these appeals as they arise out of the award dated 20.6.2003, passed by the Third Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,120 towards compensation to the claimants for the death of Nathuram who died in a motor accident. 2. Misc. Appeal No. 675 of 2003 is filed by the insurance company challenging its liability to pay the compensation while Misc. Appeal No. 707 of 2003 is filed by claimants for enhancement of the award. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased Nathuram along with his family members was going to Vaishno Devi. For that purpose, he borrowed a jeep from one of his friends bearing registration No. UP 75-9660. When the jeep reached near village Barhi, it dashed against another jeep coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, deceased Nathuram sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Phoop whereon Marg No. 24/00 was recorded. Subsequently, the police registered the case at Crime No. 114 of 2000 for commission of the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 4. Claimants are the widow and children of the deceased. The jeep in question was owned by Asha Jadon, respondent No. 9 in M.A. No. 675 of 2003 and was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant in M.A. No. 675 of 2003. 5. According to the claimants, the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident and was posted as a peon in Central Bank of India at village Masuri, District Bhind. He was getting salary of Rs. 5,481 including all allowances. The Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was between 40-45 years of age at the time of accident and the Claims Tribunal after applying the multiplier assessed the compensation accordingly. 6. Contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side while Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company contended that amount awarded is just and proper. He, however, contended that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. 6. Contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side while Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company contended that amount awarded is just and proper. He, however, contended that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Thus, the questions involved in these appeals are quantum of compensation and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. 7. So far as the quantum is concerned, as per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, the deceased was between 40-45 years of age at the time of the accident. Hence, multiplier of 15 will be applicable in the present case. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, claimants have produced Exh. PI which is a salary certificate issued by the Central Bank of India, Branch Masuri, District Bhind wherein it is certified that the deceased was getting basic pay of Rs. 3,650, Rs. 352 as special pay, dearness allowance Rs. 1,104.55, house rent allowance Rs. 260.13, washing allowance Rs. 50 and vehicle allowance Rs. 65. Thus, he was getting total salary of Rs. 5,481.68. For proving this document, the claimants have examined, Mohar Singh Narwariya, AW 1, Ex-Head Cashier of the bank. In para 3 of his statement, he has stated that he was cashier in the said bank, now he is retired. Salary certificate, Exh. PI is issued by the Branch Manager of the bank. This statement is disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that this certificate is not signed by the said witness and he was never posted along with the person signing the document Exh. PI and in the absence of any other evidence, it cannot be believed that the deceased was posted as a peon. Hence, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month considering the fact that deceased was a hale and hearty person and could be earning Rs. 2,000 per month. According to the counsel for the claimants this finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is not proper. According to him, the statement of Mohar Singh Narwariya, AW 1, is corroborated by Brijlata, AW 2, widow of the deceased who has stated that her husband was working as a peon in the bank. 2,000 per month. According to the counsel for the claimants this finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is not proper. According to him, the statement of Mohar Singh Narwariya, AW 1, is corroborated by Brijlata, AW 2, widow of the deceased who has stated that her husband was working as a peon in the bank. There is no evidence in rebuttal of these two witnesses. Even in the cross-examination, nothing could be brought to show that the statement that the deceased was working as a peon in a bank cannot be believed. Salary certificate, Exh. PI is on the letterhead of the bank and bears the seal and signature. In such circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was not peon in the bank and he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month and we hold that the deceased was a peon in the bank and he was getting a sum of Rs. 5,481.68 towards his salary. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava AIR2008SC845 , has held that while awarding compensation in a case arising out of a motor accident, gross income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. However, in the light of the said judgment of the Apex Court, washing allowance and vehicle allowance will not be added while calculating gross income. In such circumstances, we assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 60,000 per annum. After deducting '/3rd for personal expenses, the dependency of the deceased will come to Rs. 40,000 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation will come to Rs. 6,00,000. Apart from this amount, the claimants shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000 as damages under various heads such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the total compensation is determined at Rs. 6,40,000 (rupees six lakh forty thousand). 10. Now the next question is about the liability of the insurance company. Counsel for the insurance company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh AIR2006SC1576 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the pillion rider on a private vehicle is a gratuitous passenger. 10. Now the next question is about the liability of the insurance company. Counsel for the insurance company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh AIR2006SC1576 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the pillion rider on a private vehicle is a gratuitous passenger. The vehicle was insured under the 'Act only' policy and did not contain any endorsement on payment of additional premium. The Apex Court in that case has held that as additional premium is not taken by the insurance company, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation for the death of pillion rider. 11. Another judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for insurance company is in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagyalakshmi, wherein the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that the insurance company is not liable for the death of a passenger in a private car. In that case, the car was insured under 'B' policy. From perusal of the facts of that case, it appears that in that case, the Schedule of premium shows that the premium was paid only for own damages, fire and theft and legal liability to the paid driver and no extra premium was paid for covering the risk of occupant. 12. Another judgment relied upon by Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company is in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CM. Jaya [2002]1SCR298 . In that case also, the vehicle was insured under the 'Act policy' and no extra premium was paid for covering the higher risk of third party. In that case, the Apex Court has distinguished between the statutory liability and contractual liability and held that as extra premium was not paid in respect of third party, the insurance company will be liable only to the extent of the statutory liability covered under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 13. In the case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059, the question about the liability of the insurance company in respect of a gratuitous passenger in a car was considered. 13. In the case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059, the question about the liability of the insurance company in respect of a gratuitous passenger in a car was considered. In that case, the 'Act policy' was issued by the insurance company and no extra premium was paid to cover the gratuitous passenger, hence, the Apex Court held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation for the death of a gratuitous passenger. 14. In a judgment of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pramila 1989 ACJ 809 , relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company, Division Bench of this Court held that a private car is used as a taxi and extra premium was paid for passengers, the insurance company cannot be held liable as the owner has committed breach of the policy conditions. Thus, this judgment is distinguishable on facts. 15. So far as the cases of Dr. T.V. Jose 2001 ACJ 2059; CM. Jaya [2002]1SCR298 and Tilak Singh AIR2006SC1576 , are concerned, in those cases the policy was 'Act policy' while in the case of Bhagyalakshmi, decided by Karnataka High Court the judgment is about 'B' policy. In the present case, from perusal of the policy, it appears that the policy is 'B' policy and is comprehensive one. Section II(i) of the said policy reads as under: Death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the motor car (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. 16. Now the question is in spite of the aforesaid term in the policy, whether it can be held that the insurance company is not liable? 17. Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company has tried to advance argument that in the present case also the vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle. However, the Claims Tribunal has disbelieved this contention. In the present case, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this contention. Even there are no specific pleadings to that effect. Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company has tried to advance argument that in the present case also the vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle. However, the Claims Tribunal has disbelieved this contention. In the present case, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this contention. Even there are no specific pleadings to that effect. Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company has tried to advance argument on the basis of some suggestion put in cross-examination to Mohar Singh Narwariya, AW 1. This witness in para 4 of his cross-examination has admitted that 4-5 members of his family and 4-5 members of Nathuram family were travelling in the jeep. He does not know whether Rakesh Sharma had brought the jeep and whether he has brought the jeep after paying the rent or without payment of rent. He has stated that he knows Rakesh Sharma, who was agent of Pooja Travels. He does not know whether the jeep was of Pooja Travels. This cross-examination is not sufficient to hold that the vehicle was owned by Pooja Travels and was used as a commercial vehicle. Brijlata, AW 2, widow of the deceased was put a suggestion that the jeep was sent by some bus owner and they had to go to Vaishno Devi in a bus. She does not know what was the amount fixed for hiring a bus and she does not know whether the jeep owner was her relative. From these statements, it cannot be inferred that the jeep was hired for going to Vaishno Devi. Burden to prove this fact was definitely on the insurance company, but the insurance company failed to prove the said fact. Thus, in the present case, we do not find that any breach of the policy conditions is committed by the driver or owner of the jeep. 18. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nemi Chand v. Pradeep Kumar, has held that the burden is on the insurance company to prove that the passengers were carried for hire or reward. If there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was travelling either as a gratuitous passenger or for hire or reward, then the insurance company is liable. 19. Mr. If there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was travelling either as a gratuitous passenger or for hire or reward, then the insurance company is liable. 19. Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja M.A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23.8.2005, at Gwalior wherein the Division Bench has compared the difference between Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After comparison of both the provisions, we find that in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 95, there was a bar for covering the liability of gratuitous passenger in a private car, however, there is no such bar in Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, it is open for insurance company to cover risk of gratuitous passengers in a private car. 20. Learned Counsel for the claimants pointed out that in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyanath Hazarika 1989 ACJ 685, five-Judge Bench of Gauhati High Court has held that the insurance company is liable for the death or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger in a car. In that case statutory instructions dated 25.3.1977, of the Tariff Advisory Committee were brought to the notice of Gauhati High Court and relying on those instructions, Gauhati High Court has held that those instructions would apply to all the pending cases before the Claims Tribunal or before the appellate authority and would apply to all other cases if the policy does not cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. Similar directions were issued in the case of Shanthabai v. Shekappa ILR1995KAR1637 . In that case also, Karnataka High Court has referred to the notification dated 23.2.1978, which relates to covering risk of passengers in a private car. Karnataka High Court has held that these instructions are issued in pursuance of Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2071 of 1968, therefore, in the light of the said circular issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, the insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation to a gratuitous passenger, travelling in a car. 21. Counsel for the claimants has also relied on a judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. 21. Counsel for the claimants has also relied on a judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Acharya, wherein Himachal Pradesh High Court has also held the insurance company liable. However, from the perusal of the said judgment, we find that additional premium for covering the risk of passenger was paid. In such circumstances, said judgment is not of any help to the claimants. 22. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh AIR2000Kant202 , Karnataka High Court has held that risk of a gratuitous passenger is covered. In that case, Karnataka High Court has held that under the 'Act policy' the risk is covered as gratuitous passenger will be included under the term 'any person' mentioned in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 23. Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar [1998]2SCR284 , is a judgment of the Apex Court wherein the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has considered the question of liability of the insurance company of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a car and held that the expression 'any person' would include occupant of the car or gratuitous passenger travelling in a car. While deciding the case of Tilak Singh AIR2006SC1576 , this judgment which was passed by the larger Bench of the Apex Court was not brought to the notice, hence, it was not considered. In that case, there was a comprehensive policy and the Supreme Court has held that the risk of gratuitous passenger is fully covered and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 24. In the present case, the insurance company has issued comprehensive 'B' policy and as per the term of Section II-1(i) of the said policy, risk for death or bodily injury of any person including the occupant carried in the motor vehicle provided he is not carried for hire or reward is included in the definition of 'third party'. The insurance company has charged a sum of Rs. 509 as a basic premium under the head liability of public risk and thus, has covered the risk of a passenger. On the head of the Schedule it is clearly mentioned 'comprehensive' and considering this fact, it is clear that in the present case, the insurance company has covered the risk of passenger travelling in a private car. 25. 509 as a basic premium under the head liability of public risk and thus, has covered the risk of a passenger. On the head of the Schedule it is clearly mentioned 'comprehensive' and considering this fact, it is clear that in the present case, the insurance company has covered the risk of passenger travelling in a private car. 25. At the time of hearing, revised Motor Tariff Zone 'A-B-C with effect from 1.1.2007, was brought to our notice for perusal; relevant portion thereof is quoted below: Revised Motor Tariff Zone 'A-B-C w.e.f. 1.1.2007 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Types of Vehicles % on IDV- Age up to PA TPPD T.P. LLP/WC 5 5-10 Above [com limited] passenger years years 10 years A B A B A B C ______________________________________________________________________________________ M/C & Scooter 1lakh 1lakh Up to 150 cc 1.430 1.580 1.840 50 300 Up to 350 cc 1.500 1.660 1.940 50 300 Above 350 cc 1.530 1.700 1.980 50 620 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Private Car 2 lakh 7.5 lakh Up to 1000 cc 2.440 2.550 3.020 100 670 25 Up to 1500 cc 2.560 2.680 3.160 100 800 25 Above 1500 cc 2.680 2.810 3.240 100 2500 25 _______________________________________________________________________________________ M/C & Scooter1 1 lakh 1 lakh ________________________________________________________________________________________ Taxi 4-Wheeler Up to 5 5-7 Above 2 lakh 6 passenger years years 7 years 7.5 lakh Up to 1000 cc 3.190 3.270 3.350 100 1650 350 25 Up to 1500 cc 3.350 3.430 3.510 100 2330 350 25 Above 1500 cc 3.510 3.590 3.680 100 1840 350 25 ________________________________________________________________________________________ From perusal of the said tariff, it appears that in a case of taxi, additional premium of Rs. 350 is payable for covering the risk of passenger, while there is no provision for paying extra premium for passenger for a private car. Thus, there is no provision in the tariff for payment of extra premium for passenger in a private car which also shows that the passengers in a private car are covered without paying any additional premium. 26. Considering all these facts, we hold that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Hence, allow Misc. Appeal No. 707 of 2003 filed by the claimants and dismiss Misc. Appeal No. 675 of 2003 filed by the insurance company and direct that the owner, driver and insurance company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 6,40,000 (rupees six lakh forty thousand) to the claimants. Hence, allow Misc. Appeal No. 707 of 2003 filed by the claimants and dismiss Misc. Appeal No. 675 of 2003 filed by the insurance company and direct that the owner, driver and insurance company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 6,40,000 (rupees six lakh forty thousand) to the claimants. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till realization.