Dr. RAVI RANJAN, J.:–I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 12th of April, 1988 and award dated 25th April, 1988 passed by District Judge and Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Nawada in Claim Case No. 1 of 1984 as well as Claim Case No. 2 of 1984 and, as such, they have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Facts necessary for consideration of the appeals stand enumerated as under:– Claim Case Nos. 1 of 1984 and 2 of 1984 were filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for grant of compensation in view of death and injuries caused upon the claimants in the accident concerned. Late Narendra Kumar, the owner of the private car No. BRH 2117, was travelling in his aforesaid car along with his family and his brother-in-law Ram Naresh Pandey, his niece Prabha Devi and his children Rupesh Kumar and Rashmi Rani. The accident took place on the Ranchi – Patna Road near village Kendua and Fatehpur Crossing on 2.10.1981 at about 1.30 P.M. The owner aforesaid was himself driving the car and was coming from Dhanbad to Nawada. It has been claimed that the car was plying on left side of the road, however, a truck bearing No. WMK 2968, which was coming in a very high speed from the opposite direction and was plying on the wrong side of the road, that is right side, dashed against the car causing the unfortunate death and injuries. It has been claimed that the accident was entirely due to negligent driving of the truck resulting in collision. As per the allegation, the impact of collision was so severe that the car concerned got smashed resulting the spot death of Narendra Kumar, Ram Narain Pandey and Kumari Rashmi Rani daughter of Ram Narain whereas Smt. Nirmala Singh wife of Narendra Kumar and Smt. Sushama Rani, Swapna Rani, Sima Rani daughter of Narendra Kumar, Smt. Prava Devi wife of Ram Narain and Rupesh Kumar received grievous injuries. The injured were sent to Patna Medical College and Hospital for treatment. It has been claimed that, due to untimely death of earning members, their dependants have become orphans and rendered to a pitiable plight. The appellants claimed total compensation of Rs. The injured were sent to Patna Medical College and Hospital for treatment. It has been claimed that, due to untimely death of earning members, their dependants have become orphans and rendered to a pitiable plight. The appellants claimed total compensation of Rs. 5,15,000/- on account of death of Narendra Kumar and Rs. 15,000/- for the treatment of the injured in Claim Case No. 1 of 1984 whereas total claim in Claim Case No. 2/84 was Rs. 1,85,000/- only, i.e., Rs. 1,70,000/- on account of death of Ram Narain Pandey and Rs. 15,000/- for the injured. After framing issues and appreciation of material available on record, findings were recorded by the Claim Tribunal that both the claim petitions are maintainable. It has further been held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. WMK 2968 and the claimants were entitled to get just compensation which has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 3,26,616/- in Claim Case No. 1/84, whereas in Claim Case No. Claim Case No. 2/84 the claimants were awarded Rs. 1,06,800/-. In both cases interest was also allowed @ 6 %, per annum, however, the same is to be calculated from the date of payment of compensation. 4. The owner and driver of the truck did not appear and file any written statement. However, opposite party no. 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Patna, i.e., insurer of truck, has contested the claim by filing written statement. The opposite party no. 4. i.e.. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, has also filed written statement stating that it would not be liable to pay any compensation as the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck no. WMK 2968 which was plying on wrong side and wanted to overtake another truck plying in its front. It over-took the said truck in a very high speed from its right side and dashed against the said Ambassador head on and the alleged accident took place. 5. After consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Claim Tribunal framed following issues:– 1. Whether the claim petitions are maintainable? 2. Whether the accident as alleged had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. WMK 2968? 3. 5. After consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Claim Tribunal framed following issues:– 1. Whether the claim petitions are maintainable? 2. Whether the accident as alleged had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. WMK 2968? 3. In the amount of compensation as claimed in both the cases is correct and legal and who is liable to pay the same? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to any other relief? 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment / award suffers from several infirmities and as, such, it is fit to be modified so far as quantum of just compensation, rate of interest and effective period of payable interest are concerned, due to the reasons and grounds mentioned below:– A. Income of the deceased in order to find out the amount of dependency has been incorrectly reduced by half after deducting the personal expenditure which should be one third only as per series of judicial pronouncement which has become judicial precedent. B. Income of the deceased has been considered on the date of death and future prospects of incensement in pay scale, promotional avenues, retiral benefits etc. have not been considered. Hence the Tribunal erred in computing the amount of just compensation by overlooking the documentary as well as oral evidence on that point as AW4, AW5, AW6 and AW7 and Ext. 1, 2 and 6. AW 6 has stated that deceased Narendra Kumar was having promotional avenue to avail scale of Rs. 2800-3600/- and there was likely increase in salary by Rs. 1200/-. Such proposition would also apply in case of R.N. Pandey as his lowest salary of Rs. 850.00 has been considered by the Tribunal. Even in absence of positive evidence in increase of income due to promotional avenue, the increase in salary considering the increase in price Index and D.A., must had been considered by the Tribunal specially in view of the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others [ AIR 1994 S.C. 1631 ]. C. Multiplier used by the Tribunal is on lower side in view of the age of the deceased and corresponding age of their dependents, i.e, widows and six minor children. Susamma Thomas and others [ AIR 1994 S.C. 1631 ]. C. Multiplier used by the Tribunal is on lower side in view of the age of the deceased and corresponding age of their dependents, i.e, widows and six minor children. In case of Ram Narain Pandey it should be 20 instead of 18 whereas for Narendra Kumar it should be 18 instead of 16. D. The rate of interest should be at least 12% instead of 6% whereas it should be payable not from the date of award but from the date of filing of application i.e. 1.4.1982 till payment. E. For the death of minor child, Rashmi Rani at least Rs. 50,000/- should have been awarded by the Tribunal instead of Rs. 10,000/-. F. For total six injured, specifically for each injured compensation for sufferings, pain, mental trauma and physical harassment should have also been awarded in respect of all the injured separately besides the amount of expenditure incurred in their treatment as awarded for 4 injured in Case No. 01/84 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and for 2 injured in Case No. 02/84 amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. G. Besides pecuniary loss in case of two deceased, additional amount of compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection should have been awarded which is called non pecuniary loss. H. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, United India Insurance Company Limited has filed written statement with various defences which are not available to it. The Defence of statutory liability though available to the Insurance Company, but no such plea finds place in the written statement and the Tribunal has also not mentioned such plea in the judgment. Therefore, plea of limited liability by the Insurance Company is not tenable in the eye of law. 7. It is submitted in support of Ground No. H that the defence of statutory liability, though was available to the Insurance Company concerned but no such plea has been raised in the written statement and the Tribunal has also not mentioned such plea in the judgment. Thus, it is contended that plea of limited liability by Insurance Company would not be tenable in law having raised at this stage. Thus, it is contended that plea of limited liability by Insurance Company would not be tenable in law having raised at this stage. It is further urged that the copy of the Insurance Policy, being material document to be considered with respect to the limits of liabilities of the Insurance Company under the policy of insurance, has been withheld deliberately by the Insurance Company. It is further urged that due to non-filing of insurance policy the adverse inference ought to have been drawn against its as in view of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that is the old Act, it was open for the insured and insurer to have an agreement for higher and unlimited amount, the possibility of which cannot be ruled out unless the policy in question is produced either by the insured or the insurer. Since the owner has not appeared, the same was required to be produced by the insurer. Learned counsel submits that the practice of withholding insurance policy by the Insurance Company has been deprecated by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore and others ( AIR 1988 SC 719 ). 8. It is contended that in the aforesaid decision it has been held that if the Insurance Company wishes to take a defence of limited/statutory liabilities, such plea must be pleaded as defence and supported by filing the insurance policy. 9. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that even in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 after amendment in the year 1982 the limit of liabilities of Rs. 50,000/- was enhanced upto Rs. 1,50,000/- in the cases of Goods Vehicles which should be available in the present case as the amended Act came into force before the adjudication of the Claim Case Nos. 1/84 and 2/84. 10. However, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellants is noted only to be rejected in view of the fact that on the date of accident, i.e., 2.10.1981, such amendment was not in force, as the amendment Act of 47 was enforced on 1st of October, 1982, obviously after the date of accident. 11. Re: Ground A. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that amount of dependency has been incorrectly reduced by half after deducting the personal expenditure which is one third only in view of several judicial pronouncements. 11. Re: Ground A. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that amount of dependency has been incorrectly reduced by half after deducting the personal expenditure which is one third only in view of several judicial pronouncements. It is contended that only one third should have been deducted from the income on account of personal expenditure. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon several decisions of the Apex Court on this issue. For example, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others [AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1631] as well as New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie & Anr [2005(2) PLJR (SC) 249]. In the aforesaid cases the Apex Court has considered the deduction of an amount of 1/3rd of annual income only towards the personal expenditure and, thereafter, the calculation for compensation has been made. 12. Learned counsel for the contesting Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that half of the total income has correctly been deducted on account of family expenditure. It has been urged that there is no rigid formula for the calculation of the same and in absence of any evidence on this count no interference of this Court is required. 13. However, in my considered opinion, a deduction of 1/3rd of total assured income only was required towards the personal expenditure. The Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the annual expenditure towards the same. The Apex Court also, in its aforesaid decision, has considered 1/3rd of the total annual income for deduction towards personal expenditure for calculation of just compensation. Thus, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter. 14. Re: Ground B: Learned counsel has submitted that, while calculating the just compensation, the salary of the deceased available on the date of death has only been considered by the Tribunal. The future prospect of increase in pay scale, promotional avenues and retiral benefits etc. has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in computing the amount of just compensation by overlooking the documentary as well as oral evidence on that point, v.i.z. the AW 4, AW 5, AW 6 and AW 7 as well Exts. 1, 2 and 6. has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in computing the amount of just compensation by overlooking the documentary as well as oral evidence on that point, v.i.z. the AW 4, AW 5, AW 6 and AW 7 as well Exts. 1, 2 and 6. It is contended with respect to the deceased Narendra Kumar that AW 6 has stated in his evidence that Narendra Kumar was having promotional avenue to avail a scale of Rs. 2800-3600/- while he was getting basic salary of Rs. 2200/- at the time of death. The Tribunal after calculation of the basic salary as well as D.A. Rs. 416.30, C.F.A. Rs. 300/- U.G.A. Rs. 330/- has calculated the total monthly pay of the petitioner to be Rs. 3246/-. With respect to deceased Ram Narian Pandey, the same was calculated at Rs. 850/- per month. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others [AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1274] as well as General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others [AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1631] to impress upon this Court that the total existing income at the time of death has to be considered in view of ascertainment of loss of dependency and after due consideration towards advancement of future career. 15. In Smt. Sarla Dixit and another (supra) the Apex Court has applied mathematical formula to determine at the average gross income considering the career advancement of the deceased. The gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 1543/- per month, which was rounded up to Rs. 1500/-. Since the deceased was only 27 years old and was employed in stable military service and as per expectation his income would have shot up to at least double in due course, the double of his present income, rounded up to the figure of Rs. 1500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3000/- per month, was added to the aforesaid. The total after adding Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- came to Rs. 4500/- which was divided by two to get the gross monthly income which came to Rs. 2200/- per month after rounding up. One third of it was deducted as personal expenses and other liabilities which came to Rs. 730/- per month but the same was taken as Rs. The total after adding Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- came to Rs. 4500/- which was divided by two to get the gross monthly income which came to Rs. 2200/- per month after rounding up. One third of it was deducted as personal expenses and other liabilities which came to Rs. 730/- per month but the same was taken as Rs. 750/- per month . The balance of Rs. 1450/- was rounded up to Rs. 1500/- which was considered as final average monthly gross salary available for the purpose of computation of just compensation. 16. In my opinion, with respect to the deceased persons in the present case also, same formula can be adopted for reaching to get the average gross income considering the future prospects/future career advancement. The Senior Finance Officer, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad who has been examined as A.W. 5, who was stated that the deceased Narendra Kumar was employed at B.C.C.L., Dhanbad has future prospect and was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 2200/-, which would have increased 1.5 times. 17. Thus, in my considered opinion it would be appropriate to multiply the monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal by 1.5 and, thereafter, it should be added to assessed monthly income and the sum should be divided by 2 to get the average monthly gross income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of Narendra Kumar as Rs. 3246/- per month it can be rounded up to Rs. 3300/- Thus, following would be the calculation:– Assessed gross salary by the Tribunal = Rs 3300/-. Rs. 3300 X 1.5 = Rs 4950/-. Average gross monthly income = Rs. 3300 + 4950 = 2 Rs. 4125/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure total actual income available for computation of compensation would as follows:– Rs. 4125/3 = Rs 1375/- Rs. 4125 – Rs 1375 = Rs. 2750/-. This would form the multiplicand for to be multiplied by 16, i.e., the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal. Total actual annual income available to the dependants = Rs. 2750 X 12 = Rs. 33000/-. Just compensation = Rs. 33000 X 16 = Rs. 5,28,000/- 18. So far the deceased Ram Narian Pandey is concerned, there is no evidence on account of future prospect. However, in view of the fact that he died at the age of 30 years itself and was earning Rs. 2750 X 12 = Rs. 33000/-. Just compensation = Rs. 33000 X 16 = Rs. 5,28,000/- 18. So far the deceased Ram Narian Pandey is concerned, there is no evidence on account of future prospect. However, in view of the fact that he died at the age of 30 years itself and was earning Rs. 850/- per month as per assessment of the Tribunal, in my considered opinion, the same formula should be applied in case of this deceased also. After applying the aforesaid formula the gross average per month salary would come to Rs. 1275/-. Following would be the calculation:– Assessed gross salary by the Tribunal = Rs 850/-. Rs. 850 X 2 = Rs 1700/-. (Multiplier 2 is chosen as deceased was merely 30 years old) Average gross monthly income = Rs. 850 + 1700 = 2 Rs. 1275/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure actual monthly income available to the dependants would be as follows:– Rs. 1275/3 = Rs 425/- Rs. 1275 – Rs 425 = Rs. 850/-. This would form the multiplicand for to be multiplied by 18, i.e., the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal. Total actual annual income available to the dependants would be Rs. 850 X 12 = Rs. 10200/-. Just compensation would, thus, comes to Rs. 10200 X 18 = Rs. 1,83,600/- 19. Learned counsel has raised objection with regard to multiplier used by the Tribunal also being on lower side. However, in my considered opinion, nothing could be brought on record to show that the multiplier used by the Tribunal as 16 in the case of Narendra Kumar and 18 in the case of Ram Narian Pandey could be faulted. 20. Re: Ground C & D: Learned counsel has stated that rate of 6 % interest has been awarded in the case which should be at the rate of 12 %. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon some decisions of the Apex Court. It is submitted that in Jagbir Singh and others Vs. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and others [AIR 1987 Supreme Court 70] interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident up to the date of payment was imposed . It is urged that in Smt. Chameli Watrand another Vs. It is submitted that in Jagbir Singh and others Vs. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and others [AIR 1987 Supreme Court 70] interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident up to the date of payment was imposed . It is urged that in Smt. Chameli Watrand another Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others [A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1191] also, the Supreme Court has stated that at least 12% interest per annum from the date of compensation should be awarded. It has also been held, after setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the Court concerned, that interest should be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim case itself in place of date of respective judgments. It has further been submitted that in Most. Kewala Devi and others Vs. Bihar State Rajya Transport Corporation and others [AIR 1988 Patna 351] the rate of interest has been raised from 9% to 12 % per annum. Similarly, Full Bench of Madhaya Pradesh High Court in Prakramchand Vs. Chuttan & ors [AIR 1991 Madhya Pradesh 280 (FB)] has held that, even without being claimed by the claimant, the High Court can enhance rate of 12 % interest per annum from the date of application. It is urged that in Jagbir Singh and others (supra) also the Apex Court has awarded interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of application. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-United India Insurance Company (respondent no. 3) submitted that no specific interest has been provided in the Act and, thus, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case but in no case interest should be granted after date of filing of application rather the same should be given from the date of enhancement of the compensation amount. 22. In my considered opinion also, in view of the fact that in such an unfortunate case of accident in which deceased persons have died living behind widows and several minor children, interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be appropriate. 23. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded 6% interest per annum only on the ground that the claimants could not give the Insurance Policy and after several dates they added the Insurance Company as party. 23. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded 6% interest per annum only on the ground that the claimants could not give the Insurance Policy and after several dates they added the Insurance Company as party. In my view, awarding such rate interest on that ground would be erroneous. It appears that the Tribunal itself has recorded that the case was filed at Gaya and, after creation of judgeship of Nawada, it was transferred to Nawada which must have been the foremost cause of delay in deciding the case. So far the claimants are concerned, the Tribunal should have considered that, being dependents of the deceased, they may not be knowing the factum of insurance policy and the full details of the Insurance Company as they must not have any access to the documents possessed by the owner of the truck or the Insurance Company. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment mentioned above pronouncement as well as the fact that the deceased has lost his life living behind his widow and minor children, in my considered opinion, interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be proper. Thus, the interest rate is enhanced from 6% to 12 % per annum to be calculated from the date of application till the date of actual payment of the compensation amount. 25. Re: Ground E Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this High Court Sushila Devi Vs. Nivendan Choudhary & ors [ 1998(2) PLJR 609 ]. In that case a minor boy was killed in a motor accident and Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,000/- compensation. It was held that error has been committed by the Tribunal in taking the notional income of the deceased and use of multiplier for the purpose of calculation of compensation as, in the case of death of a child, compensation must be awarded on a lump sum basis while considering the status, financial position of the family, future expectancy and loss of love and affection. The Apex Court also in Manju Devi & Anr. Vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr. [2003(2) PLJR (SC) 120] has held that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- awarded by way of compensation for death of 13 years old boy was not proper on account of wrong multiplier having been applied. The Hon’ble Apex Court had increased the compensation amount to Rs. 2,25,000/-. 26. Vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr. [2003(2) PLJR (SC) 120] has held that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- awarded by way of compensation for death of 13 years old boy was not proper on account of wrong multiplier having been applied. The Hon’ble Apex Court had increased the compensation amount to Rs. 2,25,000/-. 26. Though in the present case, provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act would not be applicable, however, in view of the aforesaid, it is held that proper and just compensation should have been at least Rs. 50,000/- 27. RE: Ground F So far the injured are concerned, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each have been awarded to all the six injured persons. In view of the accident having been taken place in 1981, I do not find any error in computation of compensation with respect to the injured. 28. Re: Ground G In view of the fact that there is no such provision in the old Act regarding any additional amount of compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection in the old Act as learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision for grant of such compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or any judicial pronouncement to that effect for awarding a sum under the aforesaid heading. Under the Old Act, this Court cannot award compensation against such head. 29. Re: Ground H So far ground H questioning the limited liability of the Insurance Company in view of non production of the insurance policy by them is concerned, that is not required to be gone into in view of the fact that Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 clearly lays down that, in case the amount of calculation exceeds the liability of the insurer, the insurer would be entitled to recover the excess amount from the person who would be responsible to pay such amount. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in New India Vs. Kamla [2001(3) PLJR (SC) 74] and Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Naujapan [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1630] and in New India Vs. Darshan Devi 2008(7) SCC 416 ] as per the claim of the appellants. In my opinion also, the insurer would have to pay the just compensation and, thereafter, it could recover the amount paid in excess to its liability from the responsible persons. 30. Vs. Naujapan [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1630] and in New India Vs. Darshan Devi 2008(7) SCC 416 ] as per the claim of the appellants. In my opinion also, the insurer would have to pay the just compensation and, thereafter, it could recover the amount paid in excess to its liability from the responsible persons. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the just compensation with respect to Narendra Kumar would be Rs. 5,28,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of claim application till the date of its payment. 31. Similarly for the deceased Ram Narain Pandey the same would come to Rs. 1,83,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from the date of filing of claim application till the date of its payment. 32. It is further held that the claimants would be entitled for the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for each injured person along with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from the date of filing of claim application till the date of its payment. They would also be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants for the death of concerned minor child in place of Rs. 10,000/- along with aforesaid interest @ 12% per annum in similar manner. 33. The amount payable, after deducting the payment, if any, already made to the appellants in compliance of the Award of the Tribunal, would have to be paid by the Insurance Company concerned within three months. The amount exceeding to their permissible / statutory limit can be realized by the Insurance Company from the responsible person in view of the provisions contained in Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 specially since the Insurance Company was also not able to produce the insurance policy concerned before the Tribunal to show the extent of its liability. 34. So far the cross objections filed in both the appeals, i.e., in M.A. No. 35 of 1989 and M.A. No. 36 of 1989, by the respondent Insurance Company are concerned, it appears from the grounds raised that, in place of assailing the Judgment and Award, it supports the same and accepts its statutory liability to the prescribed limit mentioned in the copy of the insurance policy. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company admitted at the time of hearing that the Judgment and Award has not been assailed. 35. In above view of the matter both the cross objections are dismissed. 36. Accordingly, both the appeals succeed to the extent as indicated above. The Awards concerned also stand modified to the extent as aforesaid.