Judgment 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross objection are filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Villupuram and the claimants respectively, against the Judgement and Decree dated 25.08.2006 made in MCOP.No.799/2004 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Villupuram. 2. The brief facts are that on 16.9.2004 at about 12.20 p.m. the driver of the offending lorry hit against the rear side of the lorry, which was stationed on account of some repair on the left side of the road and due to the said impact, the deceased Iyappan sustained serious head injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the parents and minor sisters of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as total compensation. 3. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling in the offending lorry as a cleaner and earning Rs.5000/- per month and the entire family was depending on the income of the deceased. The Insurance Company denied that the deceased was a cleaner in the lorry and contended that he was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle. It is further contended that the lorry was parked unauthorisedly in the National Highway without putting indicators or any signal. 4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence, held that the driver of the offending lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of the stationed lorry, which was parked on the left extreme side of the road on account of some repairs and therefore, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and fixing the liability on the insured and the Insurer awarded a total sum of Rs.3,88,500/-with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 5. While computing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- and monthly dependancy at Rs.2000/-after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of income. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2500/-for loss of estate have been awarded. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,88,500/-as total compensation to the claimants. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2500/-for loss of estate have been awarded. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,88,500/-as total compensation to the claimants. As against the same, the Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the claimants have filed this cross objection for enhancement of the compensation. 6. The main ground on which the impugned award was assailed by the Insurance Company was that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company had no liability to pay compensation in respect of the gratuitous passenger. 7. In so far as the negligence fastened on the driver of the offending lorry is concerned, it was not seriously disputed. That apart, there was no evidence adduced by the Insurance Company before Tribunal to rebut the evidence led by the claimants on the aspect of negligence attributed to the driver of the offending lorry. The claimants have proved that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 8. The xerox copy of the Insurance Policy filed before the Tribunal was not a complete one and therefore, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company was directed to produce the copy of the full policy along with the schedule of payment of premium and accordingly, it was produced. 9. The liability of the Insurance Company is governed by the terms of the Insurance Policy, which is marked as Ex.P4. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has produced the Insurance Policy and on a perusal of the same, the head note of the policy reads as under:- "GOOD CARRYINNG (OTHER THAN 3-WH) PUBLIC CARRIERS PACKAGE POLICY Policy No.:012402/31/03/01/00001820 Vehicle No.TN-32-Z-6897" 10. In the table of premium, the basic third party premium of Rs.3580/- has been charged and premium under WC to Employee 7 amounting to Rs.175/- has been charged. That apart for one Non Fair Paying Passenger, Rs.75/-has been charged and no other premium has been charged. This clearly shows that the policy in question covers only the liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart for one Non Fair Paying Passenger, Rs.75/-has been charged and no other premium has been charged. This clearly shows that the policy in question covers only the liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In respect of the employees, the Insurance Company is only required to cover liability confined to the amount payable under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. It is well settled that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation could be statutory or contractual. On a bare perusal of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which starts with a non-obstante clause, it is clear that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under either of the Acts, but not under both the Acts. A perusal of Section 147 also reveals that the policy of insurance is required and as per the proviso to Section 147(1)(b)(ii) taking of policy is not necessary for the liability other than a liability arising under the Workmen Compensation Act. The liability cannot be more than what is required under the Statute itself. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation as per the statutory limit, but in order to get higher compensation, it should be as per contractual liability and for that the insured has to pay additional premium. 11. In the present case, no such additional premium has been paid. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation in the present case is restricted to that provided under the Workmen Compensation Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2005-ACJ-1323-SC (National Insurance Co. Limited. Vs. Prembai Patel) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12.) The heading of Chapter XI of the Act is 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks' and it contains Sections 145 to 164. Section 146(1) of the Act provides that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 147 provides that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or passenger or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in public place. Sub clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) are comprehensive in the sense that they cover both 'any person' or 'passenger'. An employee of owner of the vehicle like a driver or a conductor may also come within the purview of the words 'any person' occurring in sub clause(i). However, the proviso (i) to clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 147 says that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of the bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, if the employee is such as described in sub clauses (a) or (b), ). The effect of this proviso is that if an Insurance Policy covers the liability under the Workmen Compensation Act in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147(1)(b), it will be a valid policy and would comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act. Section 149 of the Act imposes a duty upon the insurer (Insurance Company) to satisfy judgements and awards against person insured in respect of third party risks. The expression 'such liability' as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy)' occurring in sub section (1) of Section 149 is important. It clearly shows that any such liability, which is mandatorily required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of Section 147(1) has to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. It clearly shows that any such liability, which is mandatorily required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of Section 147(1) has to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The effect of this provision is that an Insurance Policy, which covers only the liability arising under the Workmen Compensation Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee as described in sub clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act is perfectly valid and permissible under the Act. Therefore, where any such policy has been taken by the owner of the vehicle, the liability of the Insurance Company will be confined to that arising under the Workmen Compensation Act. 13.) The Insurance Policy being in the nature of a contract, it is permissible for an owner to take such a policy where under the entire liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147(1)(b) may be fastened upon the Insurance Company and Insurance Company may become liable to satisfy the entire award. However, for this purpose the owner must take a policy of that particular kind for which he may be required to pay additional premium and the policy must clearly show that the liability of the Insurance Company in case of death of or bodily injury to the aforesaid kind of employees is not restricted to that provided under the Workmen Compensation Act and is either more or unlimited depending upon the quantum of premium paid and the terms of the policy." 12. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the amount payable under the Workmen Compensation Act. 13. In this case, it is the case of the claimant that the deceased was working as a cleaner at the time of the accident and was travelling as a cleaner in the offending vehicle. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report and even in the First Information Report, it is specifically averred that the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report and even in the First Information Report, it is specifically averred that the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. There is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the Insurance Company to infer that the deceased was not travelling as a cleaner and was an unauthorised passenger. Therefore, I have no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the offending vehicle. 14. The father of the deceased examined himself as PW.1 and stated that his son was 20 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. It was also claimed that he was having driving license to drive tractor and he was also earning income as a driver of the Tractor. Except the said driving license, there is no other evidence produced to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of any such definite evidence, the monthly income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.3000/-. After taking 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the annual dependency could be taken as Rs.24,000/-. Taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased as 37 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/-, which appears to be just and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2500/-under the head of loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, which require to be modified. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses are added. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,09,000/-. 15. However, in this case, it is held that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the amount payable under the Workmen Compensation Act. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act has to be computed. The deceased was aged 20 years old at the time of the accident and his income has been assessed at Rs.3000/- per month and if compensation is assessed in consonance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, the amount payable by the Insurance Company has to be calculated by multiplying 50 per cent of the income of the deceased by the relevant factor. As the deceased was aged 20 years old at the time of the accident, the relevant factor would be 224, thus the compensation payable would come to (Rs.1500x224) Rs.3,36,000/-. 16. In the facts of the present case, although the claimants are entitled to get Rs.4,09,000/- with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the petition till the actual deposit, I hereby direct the Appellant Insurance Company only to pay the amount which would be payable by applying the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On such calculation, the Appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,36,000/-with interest at 12 per cent p.a. from the date of one month after the accident till actual payment and the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company would be limited to that amount. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the cross objection is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted to Rs.3,36,000/-with interest at 12 per cent p.a. from the date of one month after the accident till the actual deposit and that the excess amount in the award should be paid by the owner of the vehicle/5th Respondent and that the claimants are at liberty to recover the balance award amount of Rs.73,000/-with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the owner of the vehicle/5th Respondent by initiating appropriate proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this court that the 3rd claimant/Ranjitha has already been declared as major by order of this court dated 30.04.2010 made in MP.No.1/2010 in MP.No.1/2008 in CMA.No.3952/2008. The Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants 1 to 3 have withdrawn 50 per cent of the award amount. Since the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company is restricted to Rs.3,96,620/- with interest at 12 per cent p.a. as stated above, the balance amount, after satisfying the award as mentioned above, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company with interest. In the said sum of Rs.3,36,000, the claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to Rs.1,36,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-respectively. The claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective apportioned amount as stated above with proportionate interest, after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn by them if any. In the said sum of Rs.3,36,000, the claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to Rs.1,36,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-respectively. The claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective apportioned amount as stated above with proportionate interest, after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn by them if any. The share of the minor 4th claimant shall be invested in any one of the nationalized Banks till she attains majority. The 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest from the share of the minor 4th claimant once in three months. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.