JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The Insurance Company is in appeal seeking for restriction of liability to Rs.1,50,000/-, contending that the accident had taken place on 24.10.1989, which was still within the period of four months from the date when the new Act of 1989 came into force which was on 01.07.1989. The policy had been taken under Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and, therefore, the limitation of liability for Rs.1,50,000/- was pleaded by the insurer. 2. There was no limitation of liability under the old Act also for claims for third parties. The restriction of liability under Section 95 Cross Objection No.16-CII of 1992 in/and of the MV Act of 1939 was only in relation to a claim in respect of anyone accident in a goods carriage or a vehicle in which passengers were being taken. This Section 95(2) did not operate to create any restriction of liability for a claim by a third party against an insurer’s vehicle. A reliance placed by the learned counsel on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Puja Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited and others-2006 ACJ 721 does not therefore apply. 3. As regards the compensation, there is a claim for enhancement at the instance of the widow through a cross appeal filed by the widow. In this case, the deceased was a MBBS graduate doctor, who was employed in a Government hospital, drawing a salary of Rs.3,969/-. The Tribunal took the annual income to be Rs.48,000/-, provided for a 1/3rd deduction for his personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 20 to arrive at a compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. However, since the claimant had restricted the claim to Rs.6 lakhs, 6 lakhs rupees were awarded. In the cross appeal filed by the widow, she seeks for the determination of the amount of Rs.6,40,000/- itself since the Tribunal is not without power to award even higher compensation, if it was just compensation more than what was inadvertently claimed by the claimant. I accede to the plea of the counsel and if the scale of compensation as determined were to be re-examined in the light of what is just, I find that the Court ought to have retained the amount of compensation as Rs.6,40,000/-. I accede to the plea of the counsel and if the scale of compensation as determined were to be re-examined in the light of what is just, I find that the Court ought to have retained the amount of compensation as Rs.6,40,000/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was clearly wrong for it had taken 20 as the multiplier, but it did not properly factor the Cross Objection No.16-CII of 1992 in/and scope for future increases in salary as contemplated by the law at that time in GM, Kerala SRTC Versus Susamma Thomas-(1994) 2 SCC 176. For a person, who was aged 27 years, a minimum of 50% increase must have been provided for the same. If an increase in salary were also to be factored and if the multiplier of 18 had been adopted, the amount that would have been payable in excess would be Rs.6,40,000/-. The cross appeal is for retention of the amount as Rs.6,40,000/- which was determined by the Tribunal and, therefore, I am of the view that Rs.6,40,000/- would be just and adequate compensation. The cross appeal is allowed. The apportionment of the amount as determined by the Tribunal shall be retained. Since the accident took place in the year 1989 whatever amount has not been paid so far, by virtue of the pendency of the appeal, the same shall be paid with interest in the manner provided by the Tribunal to the claimants. The appeal is dismissed and the cross appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. --------------