Judgment Aggrieved by the lesser award of compensation and also limiting the liability of the Respondent -Insurance Company in payment of compensation to Rs.1,50,000/-only, the original claimants, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have preferred the present appeal. 2. Since the insurer or the insured has not preferred any appeal, the issue as to whether the accident resulting into the death of deceased scooterist -Prakash Uttamchand Munot had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.MWD-5072 has now attained the finality in favour of the appellants. The issue to be considered is, therefore, limited to the extent of quantum of the compensation and liability of the insured and insurer of the truck. 3. Mr. P.C. Mayure, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently submitted that the insurer i.e. present Respondent No.1 -Insurance Company, though admitted the fact of joint liability of compensation between it and Respondent No.2 Babusing, it failed to file the policy of insurance on record. Therefore, mere pleadings of the insurer that its liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-in view of the contract of insurance, ought to have been outrightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. According to him, the learned Tribunal, however, merely, on the basis of the pleading of the Respondent No.1 Insurance Company, upheld the contention of limited liability. As regards the quantum of compensation, Mr. Mayure took me through the record and submitted that the compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/-granted by the learned Tribunal is meager and claimed enhancement of the same. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 -insurer, submitted that as the accident has occurred on 18th November, 1988, in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood then, the insurer was, under the statute, required to cover the liability of the third party to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-only. In the circumstances, he submits that the appeal as against the respondent No.1 -Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of above material, the following points arise for my determination. (i) Whether the liability of the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company in payment of compensation is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-? (ii) Whether the compensation granted by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a just compensation? 5. On the basis of above material, the following points arise for my determination. (i) Whether the liability of the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company in payment of compensation is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-? (ii) Whether the compensation granted by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a just compensation? My finding to point No.1 is 'no' and to point No.2 is 'yes', for the reasons to follow:- REASONS 6. In order to prove that only the statutory liability was covered under the contract of insurance, the Respondent No.1 has placed on record a photocopy of the Cover Note at Exh-49. It showed that the vehicle in question was insured by the Respondent No.1 for a period from 07-03-1988 to 06-03-1989. The Cover Note recites thus: ".......having paid the sum of Rs. 304.00, the risk hereby held covered under the terms of the Company's usual form of third party only Policy applicable thereto (....... ).... " The policy of insurance is not filed on record. The Cover Note also did not specify that it was merely a "Act Policy". In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Mayure relied on the ratio in "Jai Bhagwan vs. Ramesh Chander and others" reported in 1997 ACJ 363 wherein Delhi High Court, faced with similar situation, observed that in absence of the original policy or its carbon copy and in absence of any other evidence to substantiate the case of the insurer that its liability is limited, the said plea cannot be accepted. 7. It is an admitted fact that the truck in question was insured with the Respondent No.1 -Insurance Company. The nature and details of the said contract were thus specifically in the knowledge of the insurer and the insured. The Respondent No.1 -the insurer merely filed a copy of the Cover note at Exh-49. It did not show that only the statutory liability of risk was covered by the policy of insurance. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted the defence of the insurer only on the ground that the insurer has pleaded to that effect. In absence of any iota of the evidence from the side of the insurer, the plea could not have been admitted. In the circumstances, the insurer would be liable to pay the whole of the compensation that is awarded to the appellants/petitioners. 8. In absence of any iota of the evidence from the side of the insurer, the plea could not have been admitted. In the circumstances, the insurer would be liable to pay the whole of the compensation that is awarded to the appellants/petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Usmanpurkar relied on the ratio in "National Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi vs. Jugal Kishore", reported in 1988 Law Suit (SC) 112 to buttress his argument that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation more than the liability specified by Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reading of the authority, however, would show that in that case, the policy of insurance was placed on record and after going through the contents of the photocopy of the policy, it was held accordingly. In the present case, however, the policy of insurance or a copy thereof is not placed on record. 9. As regards the quantum of the compensation, the appellants/petitioners had pleaded that deceased Prakash was 30 years old at the time of his untimely death. He was a partner in the firm, named and styled as M/s Munot Cloth Stores which used to sell clothes on retail basis. He was also a partner in another shop at Aurangabad. Deceased Prakash used to earn around Rs. 60,000/-per annum. Appellant No.1 -Smt. Ujwala is the widow and was 26 years old, while appellant No.2 Poonam and appellant No.3 Ashwini are the minor daughters of the deceased and were of 6 and 8 years old, respectively, at the time of filing of the claim petition. In the circumstances, they submitted that compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/-would be just. However, they restricted their claim to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/-. 10. During evidence, the appellant No.1 deposed that deceased Prakash was a partner in a shop known as Pariwar at Aurangabad. He was also a builder as he used to undertake the construction work. She deposed that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 60,000/-to Rs. 70,000/-. In order to buttress the oral evidence, she had placed on record photocopies of three uncertified Income Tax Assessment Forms. 11. The learned Member found that the Income Tax Returns filed during the lifetime of the deceased were not filed on record and instead, the documents submitted to the Income Tax office after the death of the deceased, were filed. In order to buttress the oral evidence, she had placed on record photocopies of three uncertified Income Tax Assessment Forms. 11. The learned Member found that the Income Tax Returns filed during the lifetime of the deceased were not filed on record and instead, the documents submitted to the Income Tax office after the death of the deceased, were filed. The evidence on record that the deceased had, immediately preceding the period of the accident, shifted from Beed to Aurangabad was taken into consideration. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased at the time of his untimely death in the year 1988 was estimated at Rs. 3000/-per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/-per year. After deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure, the loss of dependency was estimated to Rs. 24,000/-per annum. Multiplier of 20 was applied and the pecuniary damages at Rs. 4,80,000/-were granted. It was thereafter raised to Rs. 4,90,000/-(probably by addition towards the non-pecuniary damages). After exclusion of the amount of Rs. 15,000/-already awarded under the No Fault Liability, the compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation was granted. 12. Mr. Mayure, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the copies of the Income Tax Returns, pressed into service. It may, however, be noted that all the Income Tax Returns were filed after the death of the deceased and there was not a single document or Return filed during the lifetime of the deceased is relied. In that view of the matter, the learned Member rightly did not place reliance on those documents and considered the fact that the deceased had shifted his business at Aurangabad. It may further be noted that the learned Member had applied a multiplier of 20, which, in view of the ratio in the case of "Smt. Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another", reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, ought to have been 18. Considering all these facts on record, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal. The appeal to that extent thus fails. 13. Considering all these facts on record, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal. The appeal to that extent thus fails. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of directing the present respondent No.1 i.e. the insurer to indemnify the Respondent No.2 in paying the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal of the M.A.C. Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to jointly and severally pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As regards the interest, however, it may be noted that as the insurer was absolved from the liability of payment of the compensation, it did not pay or deposit the same after the passing of the Award. In the circumstances, it would be unjust to saddle it with interest, from the date of the filing of the application before the learned Member. Hence, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/-to the appellants, alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present appeal till the realisation of the same. The appeal stands disposed of, with above directions, without any order as to costs.